The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to make alternative provision for the complainant’s son while he is unable to attend school full-time. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council's part to warrant investigation.
The complaint
The complainant, Miss X, complains that the Council has failed in its duty to make alternative educational provision for her son while he is unable to attend school full-time.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Miss X’s son has a diagnosis of complex autism and attends a mainstream school. Miss X says he has been unable to attend school full time due to his autism. She contends that the Council’s duty under section 19 of the Education Act 1996 to make appropriate alternative provision is engaged.
Miss X believes the Council’s section 19 duty requires it to make part-time alternative provision for her son and complains that it has declined to do so. She also complains that the Council has suggested that she electively home-educate her son, or make a flexi-schooling arrangement. She contends that this amounts to discrimination.
In its response to Miss X’s complaint the Council has set out why it does not accept that its section 19 duty is engaged. Its view, having considered its own policies and Miss X’s representations, and consulted with her son’s school, is that there is an offer of suitable education in place. It has therefore declined to make alternative provision.
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant our intervention. It is not for the Ombudsman to take a view on whether the section 19 duty is engaged. That is a matter for the Council. Where a decision has been properly made the Ombudsman cannot criticise its merits, or intervene to substitute an alternative view Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But that does not mean it amounts to fault. The Council’s view is properly set out in the correspondence and there is no indication of fault in the way the Council’s officers reached the view they did. That being the case, there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to intervene.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman