Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council handled her school admissions applications for her two children and her complaint about this matter. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council:
1. delayed in allocating her two sons, P and T to a suitable school when they moved into the Council area; and
2. did not respond properly to her complaint or provide any remedy.
2. Ms X said that as a result, her two sons missed a term of education.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information provided by Ms X.
7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response and the information it provided. This included a copy of P’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, the refusal letters, a chronology of events and the complaints correspondence.
8. I gave the Council and Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

9. Section 7 of the Education Act says parents have a duty to ensure their children of compulsory school age are receiving suitable full-time education. Councils can take legal action against parents who do not meet this duty.

School admissions

10. For school admissions, councils must follow different legislation depending on whether the child has an EHC Plan. As a result, the Council’s Special Educational Needs School Admissions Team (SENART) was responsible for P’s admission whereas by the School Admissions Team (SAT) administered T’s admissions applications.

What happened

October 2018

11. This complaint concerns Ms X’s two oldest children, P and T who are of secondary school age. P has an EHC Plan. Ms X has additional children of primary school age, one of whom also has an EHC Plan.
12. At the beginning of September 2018, Ms X and her family moved into this Council’s area.
13. On 13 September Ms X made an initial telephone call to SAT. She discussed placements for her younger children and said one of them had an EHC Plan. The Council says she made no reference to P or T during the call.
14. On 14 September, SAT told SENART the family had moved into the area and one of their children had an EHC Plan. SENART telephoned Ms X the same day who mentioned she also had an older child, P, who had an EHC Plan. Ms X she was considering two possible academies and was going to arrange visits to them.
15. On 27 September Ms X contacted SENART and asked it to consult with Academy C for a place for P. SENART sent Academy C the consultation papers the same day.
16. On 1 October Ms X made an in-year application to Academy C for T. The Council says this was the first time it became aware Ms X had a further child of secondary school age.
17. On 3 October, Academy C sent Ms X a letter refusing T a place. Academy C sent SAT a copy of the letter on 5 October.
18. On 8 October, Academy C told SENART that it had refused a place for P.
19. On 9 October, a SAT officer telephoned Ms X about Academy C’s refusal of T. Ms X said she would appeal the decision.
20. On 10 and 17 October SENART tried to telephone Ms X about P. On 19 October, Ms X contacted SENART and gave them her correct telephone number.
21. On 23 October, SENART telephoned Ms X and discussed Academy C’s refusal of P. The officer said she would set up a meeting after half term to discuss how to challenge the Academy’s decision. Ms X asked for a copy of the Academy’s refusal letter. The SAT officer read this out on the phone to Ms X and said she would ask her manager if she could send Ms X a copy.
22. Ms X telephoned SENART again the same day. She asked to speak to the SENART manager but she was unavailable. A staff member gave her the manager’s direct email address when she asked for it but advised her to use the generic SENART email account. Ms X emailed the manager to her direct email address later that day and asked for a copy of the refusal letter from Academy C.
23. On 29 October, Ms X emailed the manager directly again.
24. On 30 October Ms X’s partner, Mr X telephoned SAT. Mr X complained that SENART had not made enough efforts to find a place for P. The Council’s notes record Mr X made loud, derogatory comments in an aggressive tone. The officer who took the call reported it to the SENART manager.
25. Also on 30 October, SAT telephoned Ms X who said she no longer wanted T to attend Academy C and she had not submitted an appeal of the decision. Ms X said she wanted T and P to attend Academy F and she had arranged a visit for that day. SAT told SENART of the call.
26. Later on 30 October, the SENART manager emailed Mr and Ms X. This explained the steps taken by SENART to obtain a place for P at Academy C. The email asked Ms X to confirm whether she wanted P to go to Academy F because of her earlier call to SAT. The email went on to say "people calling North East Lincolnshire Council are entitled to expect the council to conduct its affairs with integrity, honesty and openness and demand the highest standards of conduct from those working for it. We expect this approach to be reciprocated and will not tolerate behaviour, including telephone calls, which are deemed to be unreasonable being directed towards council employees”.
27. The Council asked Mr and Ms X to use the generic SENART email address because staff monitored it constantly throughout the day and forwarded messages for action as appropriate.
28. On 31 October, Ms X submitted an in year application form for T to attend Academy F.

November 2018

29. On 1 November Ms X made a formal Stage 1 complaint. She said SENART had been unhelpful and would not provide a copy of Academy C’s refusal of P, answer questions or phone her back. Ms X made particular reference to the behaviour of one of the SENART officers. She said if Academy C offered P a place, this would strengthen T’s case when she appealed Academy C’s refusal to offer him a place. Ms X also complained Academy C did not respond to the consultation within the statutory timescale and when she asked for evidence of this SENART failed to respond.
30. SAT contacted Academy F on 1 November. The headteacher said it would offer T a place but was unsure Ms X would accept it because she wanted the two boys to go to the same school and Academy F had no dedicated SEN unit.
31. On 7 November SENART telephoned Ms X to ask if she was now considering Academy F for P rather than appealing Academy C’s decision. Ms X confirmed she wanted to consider Academy F, as she wanted the boys to go to the same school and Academy C had refused T a place.
32. On 7 November SAT also telephoned Ms X about her application for T to attend Academy F.
33. On 13 November, SENART sent Academy F a consultation letter in respect of P. with a response deadline of 28 November.
34. Also on 13 November, the Council responded to Ms X’s Stage 1 complaint. It said the officers involved “were able to provide evidence to suggest that during October 2018 a number of phone calls and emails had been exchanged between you, [Ms X] and the SEN team… I understand from my enquiries that the majority of these calls had sadly broken down during the conversations because the officers involved had felt the discussions had unfortunately become quite challenging and adversarial with what they perceived to be raised voices from yourself and/or your partner”. The Council went on to say SENART had emailed Ms X to explain Academy C had responded to the consultation within the statutory deadlines.
35. Ms X was unhappy with the Council’s response and asked it to escalate her complaint. She made several complaints, in particular that the Council:
• failed to respond to many of her Stage 1 complaints including the ones about the officers in SENART;
• failed to apologise for not answering all the complaints she made at Stage 1; and
• requested she make a subject access request for the information she wanted.
36. Ms X asked the Council to provide detailed information to evidence much of its Stage 1 response.
37. On 21 November, Ms X emailed SAT and asked if Academy F had made a decision about T. Ms X also requested information about the Council’s FAP.
38. SAT responded the same day and said the Council and Academy F were waiting for Ms X to confirm whether she was going to accept the Academy’s offer of a place for T. SAT said the FAP had not been triggered because T had been offered a place.
39. On 22 November SAT emailed Ms X and said Academy F had allocated T a school place. Ms X responded on the same day and said she needed to discuss this with SENART because she wanted both children to attend the same school.
40. On 26 November, SAT called Ms X again. She said she had not yet made a decision and needed to speak with Mr X first. She said she would call the SAT back.
41. On 27 November, Academy F emailed SENART to say it had refused a place for P. It sent the email to a staff member’s direct email address instead of using the generic address. The staff member was on leave and so the email was not picked up.
42. On 28 November, SAT phoned Ms X twice as she had not phoned back. She did not respond and SAT left messages for her.
43. On 29 November, Ms X emailed the same staff member for an update. She also used the staff member’s direct email.
44. On 30 November, Mx X emailed the staff member again. This time she copied in the SENART manager.

December 2018

45. On 4 December the SENART manager emailed Ms X and asked her to use the generic email address. She also tried to call her.
46. On 11 December Ms X said she wished to challenge Academy F’s decision. SENART said it would issue a challenge letter that day. SENART also phoned Academy F and set up a meeting to discuss how the Council could support the school if it agreed to take P.
47. On 17 December, Academy F agreed to accept P after Christmas.
48. On 20 December, the Council responded to Ms X’s Stage 2 complaint. It explained it had tried to speak to her but had been unable to and Ms X had then requested the Council correspond with her by email alone. The report provided a response to each point Ms X had made in her Stage 2 complaint. It recommended Ms X make a subject access request for the information she had asked for. It partially upheld two of Ms X’s complaints but did not uphold any others. It apologised for the two complaints it partially upheld.
49. P and T began at Academy F after the Christmas holidays.

My findings

Allocation of school places for P and T when they moved into the Council area

50. The law says both councils and parents have a duty to ensure the provision of suitable education at school or otherwise for each child of compulsory school age.
51. Ms X gave the Council no prior notice of the family’s move to its area before term started. In her initial call to the Council, she only mentioned her younger children The Council therefore did not become aware of P until a further phone call on 14 September and of T until Ms X made an in year application on 1 October. The Council cannot be held responsible for not taking any action to provide P and T with education during this period.
52. Once the Council became aware P and T had moved into the area, it acted promptly and was in regular dialogue with Ms X about school placements. Throughout the process, it took account of Ms X’s wishes and consulted promptly with her preferred schools. Neither SAT nor SENART allowed the situation to drift and communicated effectively throughout the process. There were some minor delays caused by the Council which were not significant enough to amount to fault as well as other minor delays when Ms X and Academy F used the incorrect email address which were not the Council’s responsibility.
53. Academy F offered T a place at the beginning of November, around one month after the Council became aware he had moved into its area. Ms X had a duty to send T to school at that point in time. However, she did not accept this place immediately. This resulted in T not beginning school until after Christmas. The Council cannot be held responsible for Ms X’s actions or any loss of education this caused T. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.
54. In relation to P, the Council acted without delay when it started the consultation with Academy C. When the Academy refused P a place, the Council took steps to support the family to challenge this decision. However, by this stage, Ms X had decided she wanted P to go to Academy F. The Council again acted promptly when it began the consultation process with Academy F. When the Academy refused P a place, the Council met without delay with the Academy and offered it support. The Academy then offered P a place. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Council’s response to Ms’s complaint

55. The level of detail in the Council’s response to Ms X’s Stage 1 complaint was appropriate and proportionate.
56. Ms X was unhappy however, and made a Stage 2 complaint. She wanted highly detailed information on many of the matters she raised and an apology where she thought there was fault.
57. The Council’s investigator tried to speak with Ms X but could not do so. Ms X then asked for all communication to be by email which the investigator complied with. The investigator spoke to the SENART officers Ms X had complained about. The investigation was proportionate and made a finding on each issue or advised Ms X on how to make a subject access request to get the information she was seeking.
58. The Council apologised for the two complaints it partially upheld. There was no requirement for it to apologise for the matters it did not uphold. There was no fault in how the Council dealt with Ms X’s complaint at either stage of the process.
59. Ms X believes the Council should have accepted her requests for information which she made during the complaints process as a subject access request under the rules of the General Data Protection Regulations. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to deal with complaints about access to information. I will not investigate this matter further.

Back to top

Final decision

60. There was no fault in the Council’s actions. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman