The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions concerning what happened to Mrs X’s child in school. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in matters concerning safeguarding and attendance to warrant investigation. We cannot investigate the actions of the school. And Mrs X has a right it would be reasonable to use to approach the Information Commissioner’s Office about data matters.
The complaint
Mrs X said the Council failed to intervene when her child’s attendance and performance at school deteriorated. She said the Council failed to start an investigation in to abuse twice reported to them. She also said the Council wrongly documented the reason for the child’s non-attendance at school as elective home education. She said the Council failed to hold correct records about the child’s location and education status, falsified witness statement and harassed her with calls and threats of legal action.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(b), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The documents Mrs X supplied show that when her family left the UK in August 2021, they did not provide their new address, which was overseas. This was important because of issues regarding one of their children’s school attendance. The child’s school had referred the matter to the Council three months earlier, which created a duty for the Council to find out if the child was missing from education. The Council’s attempts to contact the family, which clearly show it was unaware the family had left the country, were not fault. The Council’s response to Mrs X’s complaint stated that it ended all attendance action once it was informed by the local magistrates’ court that the family was no longer in the UK.
Although most matters concerning schools are not matters for the Council, it has a safeguarding duty. This is to first to consider any report of harm or risk of harm to a child from an adult. The documents Mrs X supplied showed the Council considered a report of a teacher shouting at Mrs X’s child, deciding that there was no safeguarding risk. It is not for me to substitute my own view for a decision taken after proper process.
Matters involving the actions of another child within a school are internal school matters. We have no authority to investigate them.
Data misuse issues are more appropriate for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as it has powers to direct.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions concerning school attendance and safeguarding to warrant investigation. The ICO is better placed than us to consider data matters. And we cannot investigate matters that relate to the internal management of schools.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman