Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about schools’ decisions to exclude his child. We will not investigate an Independent Review Panel’s process as it is unlikely we could provide a significantly different outcome and there has been no significant injustice caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, says a school exclusions’ Independent Appeal Panel (IAP) was procedurally unfair and did not allow the child’s voice to be heard.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(b), as amended)
3. 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:
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify the cost of our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the Council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Principles of Good Administrative Practice during COVID-19”.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mr X provided with his complaint and the Council’s replies. Mr X had the opportunity to comment on this draft version.

Back to top

What I found

Background events

6. School Z, in February 2020, permanently excluded Mr X’s child, B. In March School Z’s governing body met. School Z decided to rescind the permanent exclusion on the basis B would move to School Y. If that move failed, School Z’s governing body would have to reconvene to consider a permanent exclusion.
7. Because of the school closures starting in March 2020, B did not start School Y until September 2020. Within three weeks the move broke down. Mr X disputes the events which led to this.
8. 16 days after the move broke down School Z’s governing body reconvened to consider the permanent exclusion. It decided to uphold the permanent exclusion. Mr X appealed that decision ten days later. An Independent Appeal Panel (IAP) heard the case in mid December, around 30 school days after Mr Z had lodged his appeal.
9. The IAP quashed the governing body’s decision. It directed School Z to consider reinstatement.
10. Mr Z says the IAP did not listen to the child’s voice. He says it did not listen nor hear the parents’ evidence. He says B has never been given the opportunity to have their version of events heard.

Analysis

11. We cannot investigate the schools’ actions. This includes the head teacher’s original decision, the move to School Y, what happened at School Y, and the governing body’s meetings and decisions.
12. We can consider whether there was fault by the IAP convened by the Council.
13. Review panels cannot reinstate the pupil. The panel can uphold the decision to exclude, recommend the governing body reconsiders their decision, or quash the governing body’s decision and direct reconsideration. Here the IAP gave the strongest decision it could in B’s favour. Our investigation could achieve nothing significantly more than this.
14. Mr X wants B to have the opportunity to express their case. We would not require an IAP which has upheld the appeal to the greatest extent it can, to be re-held in order to hear more evidence. We would not say it was fault to not hear that evidence in December 2020 if it was not necessary for it to make its decision.
15. The government issued guidance for Councils on changes to practices to account for the COVID 19 restrictions. This included allowing the Councils extra time to arrange IAPs. It increased the limit from 15 school days to 25 school days when it was not reasonably practicable to meet by way of remote access for a reason relating to the conditions for a remote access meeting. It increased the time to ‘for as long as reasonably necessary’ for any reason related to COVID-19.
16. In B’s case, the IAP appears to have been more than 25 days from Mr X lodging his appeal. But by only five days. Mr X says B was not out of education during those five days as B became enrolled at another institution by mid October. Therefore, even if there is some unjustifiable delay in arranging the IAP it is unlikely we would say this caused any significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not and cannot investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot investigate the Schools’ actions, and it is unlikely we could conclude there has been any significant injustice by the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman