Summary: Mr F complains about the conduct of an Education Welfare Officer (EWO) who he says was uncaring and unsympathetic. I ended my investigation without making findings. There is insufficient evidence of fault or injustice and nothing worthwhile I could add by investigating further.

The complaint

1. Mr F complains about the conduct of an Education Welfare Officer (EWO) who he says was uncaring and unsympathetic. Mr F accuses the EWO of pursuing a vendetta against him. Mr F complains the EWO acted outside his authority when he said he would interview Mr F under caution. Mr F complains the EWO’s actions caused him and his family considerable distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 may decide not to continue an investigation if:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating;
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement;
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation;
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; and
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered information provided by Mr F and the Council. I invited Mr F and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. An Education Welfare Officer became involved when Mr F’s son stopped attending school. I have decided not to include the details here to ensure Mr F and his son remain anonymous, and because they are not relevant to the decision I must make. Nevertheless, Mr F asked me to record his son was having a mental health crisis at the time.
5. Mr F complained to the Council shortly after a meeting with the EWO on 24 November 2022. His letter set out the background to the EWO’s involvement, his complaint the EWO had been uncaring and unsympathetic and his belief the EWO was pursuing a vendetta against him because he had complained.
6. At the meeting, the EWO said he would interview Mr F under caution. Councils may interview parents under caution if they intend to prosecute them for failing to ensure their child attends school.
7. Mr F described the grave concern and distress the proposed interview caused him. He said he believed the EWO had acted outside his authority. He said that if the interview went ahead, the EWO should not be present. He said he intended to “escalate the matter.”
8. The Council responded to Mr F’s letter at both stages of its complaints procedure.
9. The Council explained the EWO was involved at the request of Mr F’s son’s school because of concerns about his attendance. The Council did not accept the EWO had been unprofessional. The Council said the case had been closed at the school’s request and there had been no further involvement.
10. Unhappy with the Council’s response, Mr F complained to the Ombudsman.
11. Mr F was not interviewed under caution.

Consideration

12. Parents, schools and councils all have responsibilities to ensure children attend school regularly.
13. Schools are responsible for recording attendance and for responding when a pupil is absent. They may call in outside help in more serious cases. This may be from the Council.
14. Councils have a strategic role in improving attendance. They must work closely with schools and may provide support to individual families. They are responsible for prosecuting parents whose children fail to attend school regularly. An interview under caution is a preliminary stage in a prosecution.
15. Although the EWO is a Council officer, the Council says his involvement was requested by the school under a ‘service level agreement’ between the school and the Council. The school requested his support and decided when his involvement should end. It appears he was providing a service to the school.
16. This being the case, his actions are not matters I can investigate. I cannot investigate complaints about the school or people acting on behalf of the school, even if those people work for the Council. A complaint could be made to the school as the commissioner of the service.
17. Even if the EWO was not acting on behalf of the school, there is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to justify further investigation. No amount of investigation would lead to a different outcome, and there is nothing worthwhile I could add.
18. Mr F complains about the EWO’s lack of interest in his son’s welfare. He sent me a selection of emails from the EWO. The emails are short and factual. They do not provide enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Mr F complains about the EWO’s body language, saying on occasions he was ‘grinning’ or ‘smirking’. These are not matters I can investigate since I was not present to witness them, and in any case, they are, by their nature, subjective.
19. The interview under caution which Mr F says the EWO “threatened” was one possible outcome and I could not say that it was wrong of the EWO to mention it. Whether it was a likely outcome, and whether it was intended as a “threat” as Mr F perceived, are not matters for me to judge. In any event, the interview did not take place.
20. Mr F made his views about his interactions with the EWO clear to the Council in his complaint. While not accepting the EWO had acted unprofessionally, the Council said he had reflected on his interactions with Mr F in supervision with his manager. There is nothing more I could achieve by investigating further.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have ended my investigation without making findings. There is insufficient evidence of fault or injustice and nothing worthwhile I could add by investigating further.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman