Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an education attendance officer’s actions. It is unlikely we would find fault or that she has been caused any significant injustice by that alleged fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains about a Council officer’s actions in relation to a child’s school attendance. She says they communicated poorly.

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 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, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify the cost of our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mrs X provided with her complaint. I considered Mrs X’s comments on this draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. In the Autumn term of 2020, School Y, reported to the Council’s attendance team that Mrs X’s child, Z, had had some unauthorised absences. The Council says School Y, had a duty to report this.
6. The Council’s attendance officer contacted Mrs X to discuss the situation. The officer then had a meeting with School Y’s relevant staff and other professionals. The officer decided that School Y had offered an adequate enough part time timetable to meet the requirement for Z’s education. The officer told Mrs X that a meeting between her and School Y would be sufficient and they took no further action.
7. Mrs X complained to the Council. She said the officer should not have held a professionals’ meeting without her being there. She believes Z’s parents should have been invited to it. She was not happy with the Council’s reply and complained to us. She says the Council has not fully answered her complaint. She thinks her views should have been heard in the professionals’ meeting direct from her. She says the communication was poor. She says the Council did not speak to her enough to know the full version of events.

Analysis

8. We cannot investigate why School Y reported Z’s absences to the Council.
9. The Council’s attendance officer had a duty to investigate Z’s absences which would inevitably involve speaking with professionals and school staff without Mrs X’s being present.
10. Mrs X’s is annoyed by the way the attendance officer carried out their role. But there is no allegation here of any significant injustice to her, or Z, by their actions.
11. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find any fault or that Mrs X had been caused any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman