Summary: We will not investigate this complaint regarding the behaviour of an Education Welfare Officer during the course of a meeting. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, states that during a meeting with an Education Welfare Officer (EWO), the EWO:
• Became aggressive, displaying unacceptable behaviour;
• Refused to accept that there were medical reasons for his son (C)’s absences from school, and inappropriately threatened court action;
• Threatened safeguarding actions if he was not allowed to see C; and
• Took no action regarding the School’s attempts to off-roll C.
2. Mr B would like an apology, an acknowledgement of the distress this caused, and for the EWO to have further staff training.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(b), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr B and by the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr B states that he attended a meeting with a member of staff from his son’s school, and the EWO from the Council regarding his son’s absences from school.
9. In the course of the meeting, Mr B states that the EWO exhibited aggressive behaviour, repeatedly banged his fist on the table, and kept asking him why he had not provided proof of C’s illness. Further, Mr B says he refused to accept there were medical reasons for C’s absences, and threatened to use safeguarding procedures if he was not allowed to see C.
10. In response to the complaint the Council has said it gathered evidence from the school staff member present at the meeting, and the EWO. This evidence stated that the EWO accidentally nudged the table, but did not show any signs of aggression.
11. It further explained that the EWO had a duty to explore the reasons for absence and to look for evidence to support them, which Mr B agreed to obtain and provide.
12. Additionally it said that the EWO wanted to hear C’s views, and that it was necessary to explain the safeguarding issues raised by the absences from school.
13. There is no fault in the EWO raising the issues that were covered at the meeting. In respect of the allegations about inappropriate behaviour by the EWO in the way that he raised the issues, there are conflicting accounts which we would be unable to reconcile through investigation. We are therefore unlikely to be able to reach an evidenced based conclusion on these matters, as we are required to do.
14. We cannot consider any aspect of the School’s involvement in this matter, including the allegations of an attempt to off-roll C, as we may not look at any matter relating to the internal management of a school.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because we could not add to the Council’s previous investigation or provide a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman