Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions the Council took following the complainant’s son being taken off his school’s roll. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our intervention, and part of the complaint concerns matters which could have been considered in court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s actions following his son, Y, being taken off his school’s roll. He says the Council is responsible for provision failure, negligence and escalating the matter excessively. Mr X says this caused significant damage to his family, including psychological distress, anxiety and financial strain.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complains that the Council has failed in its duty to make suitable educational provision following his son, Y, being taken off his school’s roll. He says it failed to identify another suitable school for Y.
8. The evidence shows that when the Council was made aware of Y’s off-rolling, it initiated the Fair Access Protocol. It subsequently offered Y a place at a Pupil Referral Unit. Mr X says this offer was not suitable and did not enrol Y. We will not take a view on whether the school offered was suitable. That was for the Council to decide and, if Mr X was unhappy with it, he had the right to apply for a place at any school he deemed suitable.
9. Mr X says that as he did not take up the place the Council offered, it decided to treat his son as Electively Home Educated. It subsequently unreasonably escalated the matter by issuing a School Attendance Order (SAO). We will not consider whether it was reasonable for the Council to do so. The Council had the duty to assess the suitability of education provided at home. Where a council determines a child is receiving insufficient education at home, it can issue an SAO with a named school. Whether it was reasonable for the Council to so in this case was a question that could ultimately have been decided in court and does not therefore fall to be investigated by the Ombudsman. In any case, the SAO has now been cancelled, and there is nothing to be gained from considering it now.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault, and part of the complaint concerns a matter which could have been considered in court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman