Summary: Mrs D said the Council was at fault for arranging an attendance visit at her home to check his school attendance when the school already knew that he was not attending school because he did not have an education, health and care plan and was not receiving a suitable education. The Council was not at fault. It has duties to encourage school attendance and to ensure the safety of children. The visit was justified on these grounds.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs D, says the Council was at fault because a school attendance officer visited the family home to investigate why her son, X, had not been attending school. She says the Council:
1. Should have investigated and found out that X could not attend school because his education, health and care plan, (‘EHCP’) had not been reviewed.
2. Should have prearranged the visit by email or phone.
2. Mrs D says the Council’s fault has caused distress to both X and her as they suffer from anxiety.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke to Mrs D. I wrote an enquiry letter to the Council. I considered the response.
7. Mrs D and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should happen

8. The Department for Education has issued guidance, Working together to improve school attendance, (‘the Guidance’). which is relevant to this complaint.
9. The Guidance says that school attendance is important. Where a child is registered on a school role, parents have a duty to ensure attendance.
10. If the parents do not make the child go to school, schools and local authorities should work together to encourage attendance. This will include monitoring, supporting, facilitation and enforcement.
11. Schools must develop a culture which promotes attendance, build relationships with families and monitor absence.
12. Local authorities, along with statutory safeguarding partners and others “have a crucial role in supporting pupils to overcome barriers [to attendance]” This must include having a School Attendance Support Team which will provide support for families, encourage attendance, and if necessary, take enforcement action”.

What happened

13. Mrs D lives in the Council’s area with her husband, Mr D. They have a son, X, born in 2011, who has an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and other educational needs. He also has other health problems which make him vulnerable to respiratory disease. He was made subject to an EHCP in 2015.
14. X began attending a mainstream primary school (‘the School’) in 2016. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Mrs D lost confidence in the school’s ability to educate X. She refused to return him to school in late 2020 when the Government required children to return to school.
15. X has not attended school since. The school took some steps to persuade Mrs D to send him to school in late 2020 but Mrs D would not do so. The Council says it reluctantly agreed to this arrangement though it believed X would have been better off attending. The school has provided a programme of online learning.
16. During this time, Mrs D has complained that the Council has failed to finalise X’s EHCP. She says that it is this failure to finalise the EHCP that has meant that X cannot attend school.
17. The school was concerned that it had had little contact with X since the previous academic year. It attempted to make contact with Mrs D but it was unsuccessful.
18. In January 2022, A school attendance manager visited the family home. Mrs D says she was in but did not answer the door. She says that she and X were very shaken by the visit. She says X’s ASD means that he reacts very badly to unexpected events. She says that, because she and X are vulnerable to disease, the officer should not have visited and, as she did, she should have phoned in advance to lessen the shock.
19. Mrs D complained to the Council. She said the Council should have known that X could not attend school because his EHCP was under review. It should also have been aware that, as he had an ASD and was vulnerable to disease, a visit to the house would be likely to distress him.
20. Mrs D complained to the Ombudsman.

Was there fault causing injustice?

21. The Council says that, as no one from the school had seen X since the previous academic year, despite having attempted to do so on several occasions, an attendance manager who was in the area visited the family home to carry out a welfare check and to discuss X’s absence from school.
22. It says it had checked with the school and was aware that X’s EHCP was under review. It says that, even so, “it is still important that welfare checks are carried out for any child not attending a school, e.g when a child is being electively home educated, welfare visits are still carried out. Also, as the school had not authorised Sam’s absence, it was also important to discuss this with the parents.”
23. The Council says the manager said, “there was no sign on the door indicating that anyone visiting should not knock and so did not feel her actions were unreasonable.”
24. The Council says, and I accept, that, while it is regrettable if X was distressed by the visit, the Council had a duty to visit both for school attendance and safeguarding reasons. I do not find fault.
25. Mrs D says the Council should have known that an unannounced visit would be distressing for X. As the Council has said, it had a safeguarding duty to visit X at home, as the school had failed to make contact for some time. Further, there was no sign on the door to suggest that ringing the doorbell or knocking would be unwelcome. The Council was not at fault for its actions.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have decided the Council was not at fault. I have closed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman