Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of an Independent Review Panel considering a permanent school exclusion. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not follow statutory guidance when carrying out the Independent Review Panel (IRP) that considered his child’s permanent exclusion from school.
2. Mr X says this has undermined his confidence that the exclusion was reviewed fairly and in line with the law. He says the exclusion disrupted his child’s education and caused ongoing uncertainty about his future. He also says the matter has affected both his and his partner’s mental health and ability to work.
3. Mr X would like the Ombudsman to determine whether the IRP was conducted properly and, if not, recommend a fresh review. He would also like recommendations to ensure those presenting evidence can participate appropriately and that proceedings are recorded properly. He seeks a remedy for the distress, time, trouble and financial impact on his family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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))

5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The information provided was extensive. I have not referred to every point in this statement, but I have considered all the information provided and addressed the key issues below.
9. Mr X complains the record of the IRP proceedings was not sufficiently detailed. Statutory guidance requires the panel to record attendance, the voting and its decision. The decision letter, which forms the record of the IRP, includes this information and more. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
10. Mr X says comments made by those attending the IRP may have influenced the panel's decision. However, the decision letter sets out the panel's reasons against each point of law considered. I have seen no evidence the comments Mr X identifies affected the panel's decision. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
11. Mr X complains the panel concluded his child had not acted because of disability but did not provide clear reasons or evidence for that conclusion. Mr X also complains the panel did not resolve clear conflicts in evidence across a number of other areas. He says he is concerned the panel did not apply the level of scrutiny required by the statutory guidance.
12. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
13. Statutory guidance requires the IRP to review the governing body's decision by considering whether it was illegal, irrational or procedurally improper. The panel was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide if the governing body’s decision was appropriate and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault.
14. The decision letter shows the panel considered the governing body's decision in line with its role. It also considered the evidence provided by Mr X and the school. For this reason, I consider there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman