Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the permanent exclusion of the complainant’s son from his school. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way in which the Independent Panel (IRP) reviewing the exclusion made its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Miss N, says that:
• Her son’s School unfairly excluded him;
• The School’s use of restraint caused the most recent behaviour leading to his permanent exclusion; and
• The IRP did not properly consider the School’s lack of recognition and support for her son’s disability.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(b), 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. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered the information provided Miss N and by the Council. I have also sent Miss N a draft decision for her comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. Miss N’s son, S, settled initially into his school placement, but in Year 1, his behaviour deteriorated despite the School’s efforts to deal with it. Miss N says the strategies employed included the use of restraint, which she felt was inappropriate as it frightened S and made his behaviour worse.
8. The School decided to permanently exclude S. Miss N appealed to the governing body against the decision, but it was upheld.
9. Miss N then asked for the decision to be reviewed by an IRP. She says this is because although she did not want S to return to the School, she does not want him stigmatised by the exclusion, when she believes it was caused by his unrecognised Special Educational Needs.
10. The IRP cannot change the decision of the governing body. Its role is only to consider whether the decision to permanently exclude was illegal, irrational, or made with procedural impropriety. If not, then it must uphold the exclusion. In this case, the IRP carefully considered all the evidence presented, and gave reasons why it considered that none of the considerations above applied.
11. Miss N has complained to the LGSCO as she felt the IRP did not take into proper consideration the way in which the School handled S, and the evidence of his SEN.
12. We cannot consider the actions of the School, only whether the IRP considered all the evidence properly. The notes of the appeal hearing show that the Panel was very engaged in asking questions and seeking clarification about what happened and why. This included seeking evidence and information about what was known about the cause of S’s difficulties, and the strategies tried by the School, with the Council’s support. It is clear that the IRP did take account of the SEN issue, but considered it did not affect the validity of the decision to permanently exclude.
13. Where a decision has been taken without fault, we cannot challenge the merits of the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the IRP made its decision to uphold the exclusion of the complainant’s son.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman