PSOW Individual Decisions

Regulation and Inspection : Estyn Report Date 08/09/2025 Case Against Estyn Subject Regulation and Inspection Case Reference Number 202410229 Outcome Early resolution

Mr W complained about whether Estyn’s investigation into his complaint at Stage 2 of its complaints procedure was completed reasonably and in accordance with its ‘Complaint Handling Procedure 2021’. The Ombudsman found that Mr W’s complaint was not investigated in accordance with Estyn’s Complaint Handling Procedure 2021 which states that Estyn will ‘investigate once, investigate well’. Whilst the Stage 2 response that Mr W received was comprehensive in many respects, it did not accord fully with relevant guidance. This was a failure which amounts to maladministration. It was an injustice to Mr W who has incurred time and trouble in bringing a complaint to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman upheld Mr W’s complaint Estyn agreed to contact Mr W and apologise for not adhering to guidance in the investigation of his complaint, to establish the issues he considers to be outstanding and provide him with a response to these in line with relevant guidance. It also agreed to ensure that staff comply with its complaint handling guidance, including recording any deviations from guidance and, if it has not done so already, to review relevant aspects of its complaint handling guidance.

The Ombudsman received a complaint from a local authority in Wales, making a complaint on behalf of several individuals (“the Council”),regarding the way His Majesty’s Inspectorate for Education and Training in Wales (“Estyn”) had dealt with a complaint it had raised on behalf of several individuals. The complaint was about the professional conduct of one of His Majesty’s Inspectors (“the HMI”) employed by Estyn. We investigated the way in which Estyn handled the complaint referred to it by the Council, and particularly whether Estyn provided an impartial and balanced response. The Ombudsman found that the Council’s complaint was investigated in line with Estyn’s internal complaints policy and accompanying guidance. The Investigating Officer was an appropriate person to consider the complaint and was suitably trained in complaint handling with no conflict of interest. The evidence considered was appropriate and proportionate to the seriousness of the allegations. There was no evidence that the Investigating Officer considered irrelevant evidence, and the Ombudsman was of the view that appropriate consideration was given to the feelings of the complainants and the witnesses, as well as to Estyn’s duty of care to the HMI. Apologies were offered for those elements of the complaint that were upheld and an internal action plan was drawn up to address the issues identified through internal and employment processes. However, the Ombudsman noted that Estyn’s complaints policy rigidly required an absolute finding and did not allow for a more nuanced approach at times when this may be difficult to achieve in the absence of independent witnesses or corroborating evidence. We found that the Estyn’s balancing of the evidence should have also included a general assessment of the witnesses’ credibility, including the implications of the pattern of allegations and the power imbalance between the HMI and the complainants. Finally, the detailed information the Ombudsman received abou