Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about what happened inside a school. We will not investigate her complaint about Council support whilst her child was out of school as it is unlikely we would find fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, is unhappy with the way the Council dealt with her child’s need to change schools.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(b), as amended)
3. The Courts have said that we cannot investigate a complaint about any action by a council, concerning a matter which is itself out of our jurisdiction. (R (on the application of M) v Commissioner for Local Administration [2006] EHWCC 2847 (Admin))
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X which included the Council’s replies.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
7. I considered Ms X’s comments on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms X says that in October 2019 her child, Z, started to suffer from racially aggravated bullying at School A. Ms X complained to the school and sought advice from the Council.
9. The Council says it advised her of her options. This included:
• She work with School A, which Ms X says was not a viable option;
• Move to another school;
• If it was not possible to arrange a new place without a delay, offering home tuition to cover the gap. It says it offered 12 weeks home tuition.
• Electively home educate; or
• Make her own arrangements.
10. The Council says it offered Z a place at alternative schools within a reasonable distance of their home. It says Ms X chose not to accept these offers for various reasons including the schools’ Ofsted rating and that one was a church school. She opted to accept a place at an independent fee paying school.
11. Ms X says the Council’s response was not good enough. She says Z should have been offered more transition support. She believes it did so then changed its mind. She says School A’s governing body meeting to discuss her complaint was unreasonably delayed from March 2020 to September 2020.

Analysis

12. It is a parent’s duty to ensure their child receives an education. When a school place breaks down, the Council’s duty is fulfilled by offering a place at another state school within a reasonable distance. The Council did that. Once it did so it had no duty to provide any additional education.
13. We cannot investigate how Z came to be bullied in School A nor how School A dealt with Ms X’s complaint. We also cannot investigate the Council’s involvement in this.
14. Ms X says the Council should have provided more transition support. It has no duty to do so. In addition, given it was during 2020 when for Z’s year group there was no in school education from March to July 2020, I can see no injustice caused to Z from any lacking extra provision.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not and cannot investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot investigate the events inside a school and the Council’s involvement in that. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s response to Z being out of school which has directly caused Z an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman