School exclusions


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Surrey County Council (23 012 934)

    Statement Upheld School exclusions 23-Jun-2024

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure the provision in his child's Education, Health and Care Plan was provided and delayed providing suitable education following his child's permanent exclusion from school. Mr X said his child suffered significant distress and he suffered uncertainty about whether the exclusion was avoidable and if suitable alternative provision could have been provided sooner. We have found fault but consider the agreed action of an apology and symbolic payment provides a suitable remedy.

  • Liverpool City Council (23 018 093)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries School exclusions 28-Mar-2024

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of an independent review panel that considered a school’s decision to exclude Miss X’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the panel reached its decision to warrant further investigation by us.

  • Lancashire County Council (23 013 684)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries School exclusions 17-Jan-2024

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to properly conduct an independent review panel. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

  • City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 008 957)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries School exclusions 10-Oct-2023

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s Independent Review Panel considered the complainant’s son’s exclusion from school. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Independent Review Panel’s part.

  • Cumberland Council (23 002 605)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries School exclusions 09-Jul-2023

    Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a panel hearing considering the permanent exclusion of a child from a school. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. Mr X is complaining on behalf of the school, which is public body.

  • London Borough of Ealing (22 004 604)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries School exclusions 13-Jul-2022

    Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the refusal of a school to reconsider its decision to permanently exclude Mr X’s child following the recommendation of an Independent Review Panel. There is an absolute bar that prevents us investigating the action of a school.

  • Worcestershire County Council (21 017 700)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries School exclusions 24-Mar-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the permanent exclusion from school of Miss X’s child. We cannot investigate the actions of a school. Miss X was offered a right of appeal to an independent review panel organised by the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

  • Central Bedfordshire Council (21 015 713)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries School exclusions 23-Feb-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an independent review panel hearing for a permanent school exclusion. There is not enough evidence of fault by the panel to warrant investigation.

  • Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (21 013 634)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries School exclusions 26-Jan-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Independent Review Panel held following his son’s exclusion from school was procedurally flawed. That is because the Council was acting on behalf of an academy school and we have no jurisdiction to consider complaints about academies.

  • London Borough of Waltham Forest (21 012 795)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries School exclusions 17-Jan-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a permanent exclusion because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Independent Review Panel (IRP) reached its decision to uphold the exclusion.

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings