Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a warning letter sent by the Council about unreasonable contact. Mr X was not caused a significant injustice by this. We will not investigate the Council’s communication with him about his child’s education because the Council upheld his complaint about poor communication and said it would apologise. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
1. issued a warning letter to him about his contact with it and asked him not to directly email its chief executive;
2. failed to inform him about decisions relating to his child, Y’s, education and delayed responding to his requests for information about Y’s education; and
3. delayed responding to his complaints through its complaints process, and about issues with the complaints process in general.
2. Mr X said the matter caused him uncertainty, frustration and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Warning Letter

5. In late 2025 the Council wrote to Mr X. It warned him about its policy for unreasonable and persistent contact.
6. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council did not restrict Mr X’s contact. It only issued a warning. Therefore, the alleged injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Informing Mr X about his child’s education and communication relating to that matter

7. Mr X complained the Council failed to communicate with him about Y’s education. Mr X said he holds full Parental Responsibility for Y and should be consulted about Y’s education. Mr X also complained the Council failed to communicate with him when he chased it over several months for information.
8. In its complaint response, the Council explained Y was not attending school. It said to meet its duties under section 19 of the Education Act (1996) it organised alternative education for Y until a suitable placement could be found. The Council informed Mr X in summer 2025 that it was consulting with the alternative provider.
9. However, the Council accepted it did not respond to Mr X’s request for information over several months. The Council upheld this complaint and said it would apologise.
10. We will not investigate these complaints. This is because the Council explained the reason why it had organised alternative education for Y. It also upheld Mr X’s complaint about poor communication and said it would apologise. Therefore, we will not investigate because an investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome.

Complaints process

11. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures if we decide not to investigate the substantive issue. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman