Five-working day rule
15. Mr O complains that Ofsted rigidly applied its internal five-working day policy when it refused to consider his complaint. He complains that Ofsted failed to consider its own statutory duties and responsibilities under the Education Act when it refused to address his complaint. Specifically, he believes that it should have considered its responsibilities under • Section 175 of the Education Act 2002 as it relates to safeguarding
16. He believes that Ofsted should have applied discretion on this as the time limit is only intended to apply to factual accuracy checks and not safeguarding disclosures.
17. Ofsted clarified to us by email that there is no different approach taken to safeguarding or equality complaints. They are all considered under the Complaint Policy. The only difference would be those complaints may be prioritised in order to try and provide an outcome sooner than otherwise.
18. The Complaint Policy sets out the process under which Ofsted will accept complaints about investigations. It covers complaints that are linked to inspections and clarifies that any complaint should be formally lodged within five working days of the draft report being issued. The Complaints Policy goes on to state that it will not usually consider any complaint submitted after that deadline.
19. We see that Mr O has a different opinion to this. Ofsted has outlined that Mr O submitted his complaint substantially outside of the five working day window. The report was published in July 2024 and Mr O did not complain until May 2025.
20. We note there is nothing within the Complaints Policy that states the factual accuracy checks are dealt with separately from safeguarding concerns.
21. Mr O explained that he felt he could not submit the complaint until after his legal action against the school had completed. This happened in May 2025 and concluded that several of the issues he raised constituted discrimination. We asked Mr O why he felt he had to wait until the culmination of the court process before he could raise his complaint. He explained that it was not until the Court’s decision that he had ’objective confirmation of regulatory failure’ after which he immediately submitted his complaint to Ofsted.
22. While we understand Mr O’s position, we believe he could have acted before the Court gave its decision. The concerns he tried to raise with Ofsted following its inspection were that it had failed to act on serious safeguarding and disability discrimination concerns that he had raised in advance of the investigation. While the eventual Court ruling might have provided objective confirmation, we find Mr O could have raised his concerns earlier than he did.
23. After Ofsted published its report in July 2024, Mr O outlined to us that it made no reference to any of the concerns or matters that he raised. At that point, we consider that Mr O knew the matters he raised with the investigator were not addressed within the report and he had five working days from that point to challenge its contents. Mr O did not do this until after the Court case concluded and provided him with what he says is independent confirmation that his concerns had been ignored.
24. While we empathise with Mr O’s reasons for not raising a complaint at the time, we believe he could have acted sooner. From the evidence available, it was apparent at the time of publication, without the Court’s ruling and by Mr O’s own admission, that the concerns he had raised were not covered within the inspection report. Also, there is no distinction in Ofsted’s Complaint Policy between factual accuracy checks and safeguarding concerns meaning they were under no obligation to handle his objections differently when they were submitted.
25. Therefore, Ofsted acted in line with its policy when it applied its five working day time limit. As there are no indications anything went seriously wrong, we will take no further action.
Exercising discretion on flexibility and reasonable adjustments
26. Mr O complains that Ofsted failed to exercise discretion in its complaint handling where he believes flexibility and reasonable adjustments were appropriate. Specifically, he believes that Ofsted should have: • issued clearer communication about how safeguarding information from a disabled parent would be processed • avoided labelling him as third party to the report as that prevented him from engaging with the complaint route.
27. The Complaint Policy states that the complaint process is for providers to access and that it will not usually consider complaints about an inspection brough by a third party not directly involved, for example, a parent or other user of the service. If you are a third party by this definition, the Complaint Policy suggests you raise your queries with the provider directly as they will be best placed to explain the process, the findings, and what action may be taken as a result of the inspection.
28. With regard to issuing clearer information as to how safeguarding information would be processed, the Complaint Policy sets out Mr O should contact the School in its capacity as the Provider with this query. They could then outline how that information was taken into account for the purposes of the inspection.
29. In terms of defining him as a third party, this again comes down to a difference in opinion. Ofsted outlines that as a parent Mr O is, by definition, a third party and not directly involved in the inspection. While that does not prohibit him from being directly involved, simply reporting concerns to an investigator equally does not equate to being directly involved. As a concerned parent who raised issues with the investigator, it appears that Mr O is, as Ofsted has defined him, a third party to that investigation.
30. Mr O disagrees and believes that as he was the source of the safeguarding disclosure he was therefore directly affected by the inspection and is a person aggrieved. While he is an aggrieved person as defined by the Parliamentary Commissioners Act 1967, that has no impact on the Complaint Policy and relates solely to our powers to investigate.
31. The complaint policy sets out that it will not accept complaints from a third party and Mr O is, by definition, a third party. We understand his frustration as he had concerns about the inspection that Ofsted refused to consider as it concluded he was not involved in the inspection. Based on this, we find Ofsted acted in line with its Complaint Policy and we will not consider it further.
32. Mr O also raised further concerns that Ofsted failed to consider its own statutory duties and responsibilities under Equality Act when it refused to address his complaint. Specifically, he believes that it should have considered its responsibilities under:
• Sections 20–21 of the Equality Act 2010 as they relate to reasonable adjustments • Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 as it relates to Public Sector Equality Duties
33. If Mr O believes that Ofsted has acted outside of its responsibilities within the Equality Act then this is not something we can consider. As this essentially requires a determination on whether or not reasonable adjustments were applied appropriately, this comes down to a matter of law and that is not something that we are able to decide on.
34. If Mr O believes there has been a breach of any equality legislation then he would need to contact the Equality and Human Rights Commission with those concerns. They are the best placed organisation to address and consider complaints about potential legislative breaches of the Equality Act. Therefore, we will not consider it further. We wish Mr O and his family all the best.