Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about exclusion from an academy school, and the Council not providing a different school place and delaying Special Educational Needs and tribunal procedures. Part of the complaint is late without good reason and we could not achieve what the complainant wants. We cannot by law investigate the other parts because the complainant has used their right of appeal to a tribunal and we cannot investigate academy school trusts.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council:
1. failed to provide another school place after a school excluded his son permanently in Feb 2025, until May 2025;
2. delayed addressing Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan procedures and the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Tribunal process correctly; and
3. enabled the academy trust of the school which excluded his son to refuse to consider and reply to his complaints about its actions

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26B)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as academy schools or trusts. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1))
5. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. Nor could we investigate if it would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which was properly for it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a))
6. 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; or
• we cannot achieve the result the person wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34(1))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant, including a response from the Council to a recent complaint about some matters.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. We cannot investigate the school exclusion or academy trust actions afterwards because we have no power to do so.
10. The Council’s handling of the EHC Plan procedure gave Mr B a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal once it issued a final EHC Plan. He has exercised that right, so we cannot investigate any Council actions which were part of it.
11. It is for the Tribunal to consider any delay or other action by the Council during the proceedings which Mr B has told us are still live.
12. Mr B’s complaint about the Council not providing ‘alternative education’ from six days after the school excluded his son is late. He did not complain to us until more than twelve months after he was first aware of the matter in February 2025. I have considered whether Mr B could reasonably have complained to us sooner, and find in the same period he:
• complained separately about the school and academy trust to the Department for Education;
• began an appeal to the SEND Tribunal, and possibly other court action because he refers in his complaint to a ‘judicial order’; and
• does not seem to have applied to the Council for a different school place in the way the law provides when a parent needs a place for their child. Mr B’s reference to ‘alternative provision’ from six days after his son’s exclusion may be a reference to section 19 of the Education Act 1996. As we have seen nothing to suggest Mr B’s son could not attend school it is unlikely that duty applied, but it was open to Mr B to apply for a different school place.
13. I have therefore decided there is no good reason Mr B could not have brought this part of his complaint to us at the relevant time, and no reason we should investigate it now.
14. It is also the case the Ombudsman could not now achieve a worthwhile result from this part of the complaint. It is not our role to decide on compensation for injury or harm; that is a matter for the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because: part of it is late without good reason and we could not achieve what Mr B wants; and we cannot by law investigate the other parts because Mr B has used his right of appeal to a tribunal and part is about an academy school trust.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman