The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s communication about elective home education. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating. For the remainder, the law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happens in schools and the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the part of the complaint about data protection.
The complaint
Mr Y complained the Council communicated poorly with him about elective home education, the school did not consider his complaint properly, and the Council then breached data protection by telling the school of his decision to home educate.
Mr Y said this caused distress, and the school was not safe for some families.
Mr Y wants the Council and the school to accept their errors.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended) 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr Y.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr Y contacted the Council about electively home educating his child. The Council provided Mr Y with details about registering for elective home education. Mr Y followed this up and told the Council that this was his aim.
Mr Y complained about the Council’s communication about this issue. We will not investigate this part of Mr Y’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with his enquiry to justify us investigating.
We cannot investigate Mr Y’s complaint about how a school dealt with his complaint to it. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happens in schools.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. It promotes openness by public bodies and protects the privacy of individuals. It deals with complaints about public authorities’ failures to obey data protection legislation.
Where someone has a complaint about data protection, the Ombudsman usually expects them to bring the matter to the attention of the ICO. This is because the ICO is in a better position than the Ombudsman to consider such complaints.
The Council has provided Mr Y with an explanation for why it shared information with the school. It is reasonable to expect Mr Y to complain to the ICO if he disputes this. We will not investigate this part of Mr Y’s complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating, the law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happens in schools and the ICO is better placed to consider his data protection complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman