Summary: We cannot investigate part of Miss X’s complaint about a school’s decision to off-site her child. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happened in schools. We will not investigate the remainder because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, and we could not add to the previous investigation by the organisation.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained the Council:
1. failed to oversee the actions of a school when it made an off-site direction for her child, Z;
2. failed to consider whether the off-site provision was suitable; and
3. delayed responding to her complaint.
4. Miss Y said that this caused her distress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)
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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(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 Y and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Z received an off-site direction from their school due to behavioural concerns. Miss Y disagreed with the decision and challenged it with the school and through the Department for Education.
8. We cannot investigate this part of Miss Y’s complaint. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about a school’s decision to issue an off-site direction.

Suitability of off-site provision

9. The school directed Z to attend an alternative provision within two days of issuing the off-site direction. Miss X later engaged legal representation and Z returned to school. The Council was involved in this process.
10. Although Miss X was dissatisfied with how the Council checked whether the off-site provision was suitable, we will not investigate this part of Miss Y’s complaint.
11. Z was out of school for a total of 47 school days. This is less than a full school term. Consequently, the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement, and we will not investigate this complaint.

The Council’s complaint handling

12. In its complaint response the Council recognised delay in responding to Miss Y’s complaint, explained the reason and apologised. The Council offered Miss Y a symbolic payment to acknowledge the frustration this caused.
13. We will not investigate this part of Miss Y’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We cannot investigate part of Miss Y’s complaint because the law prevents us from investigating what happened in schools. For the remainder, any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, and we could not add to the previous investigation by the organisation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman