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.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to hold an impartial hearing at an independent review panel to discuss his child Y’s exclusion from school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X’s child Y has special educational needs (SEN). In 2023, Y was permanently excluded from school and a pupil disciplinary meeting was held to discuss this.
7. Mr X says after the meeting a special educational needs coordinator (SENCO) and several governors stayed in room the meeting was held in, which was a breach of protocol.
8. Following the meeting, an independent review panel was held, and the panel upheld the decision to permanently exclude Y.
9. Mr X complained to the Council that Y had not received a fair and impartial hearing because of the SENCO and governors remaining in the meeting room. The Council would not investigate this aspect of the complaint because it related to actions that took place in a school setting and said Mr X had been given the opportunity to air his grievances at the hearing and had not done so. Mr X then referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.
10. The Ombudsman does not have the jurisdiction to investigate complaints regarding most actions that take place in schools and so we cannot investigate the SENCO’s actions either. However, we can review the evidence to determine whether the independent review panel was held correctly. The evidence shows the panel provided well thought out rationale when it decided to uphold the decision to permanently exclude Y. The hearing also gave Mr X the opportunity to provide his views and the panel demonstrated that it considered these views in reaching its decision. There is no evidence of bias or impartiality in the way the hearing was carried out.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman