Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council advising the complainant it would seek an attendance order if failed to provide an education plan for his daughter who is home educated. The Council has apologised for writing to Mr X who does not live within its area. It has explained it asked for the information and apologised if he felt threatened by the content of the email. While we understand the complainant’s family found the experience stressful, we do not consider there is a significant personal injustice which justifies an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council sent an unlawful, threatening, harassing email to his home about his daughter, whom I shall call Y, who is home educated. He says his family found this stressful.

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 do not start or continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. A company working for the Council wrote to Mr X stating it had not received an education plan for Y. It stated that if it did not receive an education plan it would seek a school attendance order, requiring Y to be placed on a school roll. It attached relevant guidance and a blank education plan for Mr X to use, also confirming he could provide the plan in any format he wanted to use.
6. Mr X complained to the Council advising he did not live in its area, that it was not entitled to require an education plan and that the email he had received contained several grammatical errors.
7. The Council has apologised for contacting Mr X as his address was incorrectly recorded as within its area. It confirms it has forwarded the details to the correct neighbouring authority
8. The Council has also explained the email was a follow up to an information pack previously sent which includes a request for details of the education Y is to receive. However, it acknowledges that, given the alarm felt on receipt of the email, it is probable Mr X did not receive the original communication. It also advised why it asked for the information and that its reference to seeking an attendance order was made to ensure he was aware of the possible consequences of not providing details of plans for Y’s education.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. We understand he and his family found receiving the email and the reference to the possibility of seeking an attendance order stressful. However, the Council has apologised for this, and no attendance order has been sought. We do not consider there is sufficient personal injustice suffered because of the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman