Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about action taken by the Council regarding Mr X and Ms Y’s child’s school attendance, which led to court action. We will also not investigate the Council’s handling of the matter. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more. Mr X and Ms Y have also not suffered injustice significant enough to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X and Ms Y say the Council took them to court to enforce their child’s school attendance. These proceedings were later rescinded.
2. Mr X and Ms Y say the Council:

• wrongly relied on evidence from the school
• misinterpreted statutory guidance
• failed to use alternative methods of communication.

3. Mr X and Ms Y also complain about the conduct of a Council officer.
4. Mr X and Ms Y say the Council’s actions resulted in reputational harm, emotional distress and loss of earnings due to the time taken to handle the issues, and that the action taken has exacerbated the child’s anxiety and delayed identification of additional needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, 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

6. I considered information provided by Mr X, Ms Y and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X and Ms Y said the Council wrongly relied on evidence from the school which they said was incomplete and unreliable. They said the Council misinterpreted statutory guidance regarding the level of medical evidence required to support school nonattendance.
9. I understand Mr X and Ms Y are unhappy with information provided by the school. But we have no powers to investigate complaints about the actions of schools.
10. Although Mr X and Ms Y disagree with the Council’s decision to take action against them for the nonattendance, the fixed penalty notice has now been withdrawn and the court action rescinded, so our involvement would not lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more.
11. Mr X and Ms Y said the Council failed to use alternative methods of communication after being made aware they were not receiving post via Royal Mail. They said this led to them being unable to pay Fixed Penalty Notices and resulted in court action being instigated. They also said this meant that they were not aware of court proceedings so were unable to provide evidence.
12. It is usual process to serve Fixed Penalty Notices by post. Furthermore, as the Fixed Penalty Notice was withdrawn and the resultant prosecution has been rescinded, our involvement would not lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more. Mr X and Ms Y say the Council’s action had a significant impact on them. I understand this but do not consider the remaining injustice significant enough to warrant an investigation given that the court proceedings were rescinded.
13. Mr X and Ms Y also complained about the conduct of a Council officer during the process and that complaints about this were not fully investigated. However, I do not consider Mr X or Ms Y have suffered any significant personal injustice because of the officer’s approach. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X and Ms Y’s complaint because our involvement would not lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more. Mr X and Ms Y have also not suffered injustice significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman