Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of an Independent Review Panel that considered the permanent exclusion of Ms X’s child from school. There is not enough evidence of procedural fault in the conduct of the panel to warrant our further involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complained on behalf of Ms X. Ms X said the papers presented to the Independent Review Panel (IRP) that considered her child’s permanent exclusion were different from those presented to the school governors. She said the Council and panel members failed to correct this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), 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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Ombudsman’s role here is limited. We can consider if there was fault in the conduct of the IRP. Its conduct, not the conduct of the school, the school governors, or the Council in preparing documents, is paramount as it was the decision-maker. The IRP’s conduct involves two things. The first is whether the IRP followed procedure in reaching its decision. The second is the matter of natural justice in whether the IRP considered the evidence put forward by Ms X and the school. Without evidence of fault, we cannot substitute our own view for that of the IRP. We do not function as a further right of appeal.
7. Regarding the first matter, the IRP’s decision letter ran to eight pages, indicating what happened at each stage of a hearing that ran to three hours. This showed at the outset that the IRP had followed procedure by applying the test of balance of probabilities in reaching its views. It then showed the IRP had first decided whether the child had done what was claimed. It next showed the IRP had considered the correct three tests of the school governors’ decision to exclude: legality, rationality, and procedural fairness. The letter showed why it found the decision legal and rational. It also showed the IRP’s consideration of the of the way the exclusion was carried out, what affect that might have had, and the difference in the panel papers. The letter showed the IRP recorded some criticism of the school’s and governors’ actions. But it also showed the IRP decided with reasons that these did not affect the decision significantly. The IRP could do that. That Ms X takes a different view is not evidence of fault
8. The second matter is connected with the first, in that Ms X questioned the matter of the difference in the papers and that the IRP considered it. But the IRP also explored the matter of the child’s SEN, and what the school could have been expected to know and to do. Investigation by us would be unlikely to find the IRP failed to consider the evidence presented by both parties.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the conduct of the IRP to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman