Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about a school’s actions. We will not investigate the Council’s response to her child being out of school as the alleged fault and injustice is not significant enough to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X says a school, and the Council, failed to properly investigate and deal with her bullying allegations. She says the Council delayed in providing alternative education.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)
3. The courts have said we can decide not to investigate a complaint about any action by an organisation concerning a matter which the law says we cannot investigate. (R (on the application of M) v Commissioner for Local Administration [2006] EHWCC 2847 (Admin))
4. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• 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

5. I considered information provided by Miss X.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X says her child, D, started having significant problems with bullying at their primary school in October 2023. She says that in March 2024 she contacted her MP. By the end of March 2024 she had told the Council that D could no longer attend the school as it was affecting their health. She applied for a school place at an alternative school.
8. Miss X was offered a place at an alternative school three school weeks after she had applied.
9. Miss X says the school failed to properly consider her concerns or to investigate her bullying allegations. She says the Council did not deal with this properly either. For the reasons set out in paragraphs two and three above, we cannot investigate the school’s reaction to her bullying allegations including its investigation. We also cannot investigate the Council’s involvement in that or its consideration of her bullying allegations.
10. Miss X says the Council delayed in offering an alternative school place, and failed to provide D with an education meantime. It seems the gap here, is three school weeks.
11. Councils must arrange suitable education at school or elsewhere for pupils who are out of school because of exclusion, illness or for other reasons, if they would not receive suitable education without such arrangements. [The provision generally should be full-time unless it is not in the child’s interests.] (Education Act 1996, section 19). We refer to this as section 19 or alternative education provision.
12. The courts have considered the circumstances where the section 19 duty applies. Caselaw has established that a council will have a duty to provide alternative education under section 19 if there is no suitable education available to the child which is “reasonably practicable” for the child to access. The “acid test” is whether educational provision the council has offered is “available and accessible to the child”. (R (on the application of DS) v Wolverhampton City Council 2017)
13. Councils also have some flexibility with regard to the time taken to set up alternative provision. However, they must make provision from the sixth day in exclusion cases, and they should do so in medical cases where it is clear the absence is for more than 15 school days.
14. Taking into account the easter holidays, here there was a three week gap between Miss X asking for an alternative school and a place being provided. This is not significant enough to justify an investigation.
15. Miss X says she had difficulty contacting the admission team. The Council has accepted this. But explained it is the busiest time of the year for admissions. While appreciating Miss X was frustrated by not being able to contact the admission team when she wanted, it is not significant enough fault or injustice to her to justify an investigation.
16. Miss X says the Council threatened her with legal action for D not being in school. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council informing a parent of its powers in the circumstances Miss X describes.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not significant enough alleged fault or injustice to justify our investigation. And we cannot investigate the schools role in the events.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman