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.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Miss X, complains that the Council’s Independent Review Panel failed to properly consider the circumstances of her son’s exclusion from school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X’s son was permanently excluded from school. She asked the Independent Review Panel (IRP) to consider the decision to exclude.
6. IRPs are set up by the Council. When considering permanent exclusions, they have three options available to them. They can uphold the decision, recommend that the school’s governing body reconsider the decision, or quash the decision and direct the governors to reconsider it.
7. Miss X argues that, in her case, the IRP failed to take proper account of the circumstances which led to her son’s exclusion. Specifically, she believes it failed to consider that her son was injured, and that he was restrained by unqualified staff.
8. The Ombudsman’s role is not to substitute our view for the IRP’s. Rather, it is to consider whether the IRP followed the correct procedures and made its decision in the right way. We will not investigate just because a complainant disagrees with the decision.
9. In this case, the letter setting out the IRP’s decision is sufficiently detailed to determine that it considered the matter in the right way. Miss X was able to give evidence, as was the School and the Council’s Special Educational Needs Expert. The IRP decided to recommend the School’s Governors reconsider the exclusion. In the absence of fault in the way the IRP made its decision, the Ombudsman cannot criticise it, or intervene to substitute an alternative view. Neither the IRP nor the Ombudsman can compel the Governors to reinstate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault on the IRP’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman