Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about fixed penalty notices issued by the Council when he kept his children away from school because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable for us.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about fixed penalty notices issued by the Council when he kept his children away from school following a disagreement with staff.
2. He says he kept his children away from school for safeguarding reasons and disputes the headteacher’s decision the absences were unauthorised.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 we must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is no worthwhile outcome achievable for us by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I have carefully considered everything Mr X said, although I have not included every detail here. I have included as few details as possible to protect the anonymity of Mr X and his family.
7. The school banned Mr X from the premises following a meeting where staff said they felt threatened. Mr X said he would not return his children to the school until the ban was lifted.
8. The headteacher invited him to meet with the chair of governors “to resolve the issue and move forward in a positive way”. The headteacher proposed a meeting eight days later as the chair of governors was unavailable at the time. She said she hoped Mr X would reconsider his decision to keep the children at home.
9. Mr X accepted the headteacher’s offer, but he did not return his children to the school. At the meeting, Mr X explained his concerns and apologised to the staff who had felt threatened. His children returned to school the same day.
10. The day before the meeting, the headteacher asked the Council to issue fines for the children’s absence. She explained the children had missed six days of school and her telephone calls to the children’s parents had not been returned.
11. The Council issued the fine on behalf of the school. Mr X paid the fines. He also sent submissions to the Council to explain why he did not agree with the fines. He asked the Council to cancel the fines. The Council said it did not receive Mr X’s submissions, but in its complaint response it said his comments would not have changed the Council’s decision.
12. Unhappy with the outcome, Mr X complained to us.
13. We do not decide whether the fines were justified.
14. The school decided to fine Mr X for his children’s absence. We have no powers to investigate the actions of the school.
15. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions following the school’s request to issue fines if we were to investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because the Council acted on information provided by the school and we cannot question decisions made by the school.
16. Mr X could have refused to pay the fines and, if the Council had decided to prosecute him, he would have had an opportunity to defend himself in Court. In the circumstances, this would probably have been the best way to challenge the fines.
17. In light of the limitations to our powers, there is, regrettably, no worthwhile outcome for us by investigating his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable for us.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman