Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about school transport and a period when her child was out of school. There is unlikely to be sufficient injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X said her child was unable to attend school for two weeks as staff had no care plan for dealing with his epilepsy. She also said there was no care plan for his taxi journeys to school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave Ms X an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision and took account of her comments.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X’s son has epilepsy. For several years he had frequent seizures, but they were brief. In September 2020 he suffered a more serious seizure at school that required an emergency admission to hospital.

Absence from education

8. Ms X complained about the actions of the school. We cannot investigate the actions of a school, so we cannot comment on the actions of the school on the day of the seizure or at any other time.
9. However, a child out of education is a matter for a council. The relevant points here are when the Council’s duty to offer alternative educational provision would begin and how much education the child lost.
10. Even if the Council had been aware of the child’s absence on the first school day, which is not certain, its duty to make alternative educational provision for him would not have begun immediately. The earliest date would been the sixth school day, which is the case in behavioural exclusions, which should be reported to councils. It is arguable whether the request to keep the child at home would have been covered by this timescale, or the longer one of 15 school days, which is when a duty to make alternative educational provision in the event of medical absence would begin. But, given it was necessary to produce a new care plan that took account of the changed circumstances caused by the gravity of the seizure the child suffered, it would have been difficult for the Council, or any authority, to ensure his safety at school in the interim. The same would have applied to any alternative educational arrangement. I also note the Council produced a new care plan that took account of the changed circumstances, and that school staff were trained to cope with any recurrence.
11. Ms X at first said her child’s absence from school was two weeks. In response to the draft decision, she said it was 17 days, though it is not clear whether this was calendar days or school days. However, it was a short period on any calculation of dates. It was not therefore a significant injustice.
12. While Ms X also stated in her response to the draft decision that the Council should have ensured school staff were trained to cope with her son’s needs. I note that the gravity of the seizure he suffered in September 2020 could not have been predicted.

School transport

13. The Council’s final response to Ms X quoted the information she provided with her request for transport, which was made before her child had the seizure that required hospital treatment. The information she provided stated that his seizures were brief and that he would require reassurance from the person travelling with him. That the child’s needs changed considerably after the seizure at school does not mean the Council could or should have anticipated a greater level of need or written a care plan in advance for it. I note again that the Council wrote a care plan based on the new circumstances after the seizure at school.
14. However, Ms X provided a copy of an email exchange with the Council in response to the draft decision. This showed that it took three days after the start of the school term before the Council shared the plan that was current at that time with the transport provider. That was fault, for which the Council apologised when it came to light.
15. However, the child did not suffer the seizure requiring hospital treatment on his way to school, but at school three weeks into the new term. And there is no evidence that he experienced any incident while travelling on the first three days of term that the person accompanying him did not cope with.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because:

• We cannot investigate the actions of the school; and
• The likely injustice is not sufficient to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman