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.

The complaint

1. The complainant, to whom I refer here as Miss Z, says that when reviewing her son’s permanent exclusion the IRP failed to consider her case properly and in particular disregarded her claims that:

• the investigation was not carried out by an independent person
• witness statements given during the investigation were contradictory
• Miss Z’s son was not given an opportunity to make a statement

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 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)

4. 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

5. I considered information provided by Miss Z
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and DfE Statutory Guidance Exclusion from maintained school, academies and pupil referral units in England (Statutory Guidance).

Back to top

My assessment

7. We cannot investigate the schools’ actions regarding exclusions, which in this case includes who carried out the investigation leading to and following the permanent exclusion, the content of witness statements as well as whether Miss Z’s son was given an opportunity to make a statement.
8. The only element of this complaint which is within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction is the way the review was conducted by the IRP. I established that the IRP considered the interests and circumstances of Miss Z’s son and had regard to the interests of other pupils and people working at the school. A special educational needs expert took part in the review and expressed her professional views. The IRP followed the correct legal tests by addressing questions of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. It also addressed Miss Z’s concerns regarding the investigation process and provided its reasons for not considering them sufficient to either issue recommendation to the governing board to reconsider reinstatement or quash the decision. Subsequently to the review the clerk of the IRP notified the parties of its decision.
9. Based on my findings I conclude that the review complied with the Statutory Guidance and there is no evidence of fault within this process.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss Z’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault in the way the IRP reached its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman