Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (21 002 600)

Category : Education > Other

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 08 Jul 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection referrals and the Council’s response to them. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is nothing significant to be achieved by investigating.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Miss C complains that the Council has failed to respond reasonably to her complaint that:
  • the Council’s officer lied in support of two unjustified referrals to Children’s Services;
  • the officer participated in a meeting which aimed to facilitate her daughter’s admission to a Pupil Referral Unit; and
  • the officer and school staff shared confidential information with third parties.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Miss C’s complaint relates to two referrals her daughter’s school made to Children’s Services. The Council decided the referrals raised no concerns which merited action. It partially upheld Miss C’s subsequent complaint.
  2. While I recognise that the referrals caused Miss C distress, they did not result in the Council taking any action. Therefore, there is no merit in the Ombudsman investigating why the referrals were made and whether they were based on accurate information. Our involvement would not lead to a different outcome, and we have no power to recommend disciplinary action against individuals.
  3. I understand that there has been no action to place Miss C’s daughter in a PRU, so the discussion about which she complains has not caused an injustice to her. Miss C’s daughter has an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). If the Council decides to name the PRU in the EHCP, Miss C will have the right to appeal. We will not intervene.
  4. If Miss C believes her confidentiality has been breached she may bring her concerns to the attention of the Information Commissioner. This is the appropriate way to pursue this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Miss C’s complaint because our intervention by the Ombudsman would not achieve anything significant.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings