Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council acted with fault in intervening to deny the complainant’s request for flexi-schooling for his son. Investigation would not add anything significant to the response the Council has made, or lead to a different outcome, and is not therefore warranted.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains that the Council acted with fault in intervening to deny his request for flexi-schooling for his son.

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 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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s son has special educational needs and an Education Health and Care (EHC) plan. Mr X asked his son’s school to implement a flexi-schooling arrangement for him. He complains that, while the decision was one for the school to make, the Council intervene to refuse the request.
6. Mr X asserts that the Council’s intervention was unlawful and exceeded the powers available to it. He further asserts that the Council is at fault in using special educational needs panels to make decisions without parental input.
7. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because investigation is unlikely to add significantly to the response the Council has made, or lead to a different outcome. In its final response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council has accepted that the decision on hid flexi-schooling request is for the school to make. There is no need for the Ombudsman to consider this matter further.
8. As Mr X’s son has an EHC plan the Council has an interest in ensuring that arrangements are in place for the provision set out in the EHC plan to be delivered. It does not seem inappropriate therefore for the Council to have expressed a view on the request for flexi-schooling, or for the matter to have been considered by a panel. Given that the final decision was one for the school to make, there is no prospect that investigation would lead to a different outcome, and there are therefore insufficient grounds for the Ombudsman to intervene.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because our intervention would not add anything significant, or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman