Summary: We will not investigate Mr A’s complaint that a school discriminated against his family and that the Council did not provide appropriate support to meet his family’s needs. This is because we cannot look at what happens in schools and because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr A complains his children’s school has discriminated against his children and family due to disability.
2. Mr A also complains the Council has caused difficulties and criticised his and his partner’s (Ms B’s) parenting as it does not understand his daughter’s disability.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)
5. 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr A and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. I cannot investigate Mr A’s complaint that his children’s school is discriminating against them. This is because the law prevents us from investigating what happens in schools.
9. I have looked at the complaints Mr A raised to the Council through its complaints process and considered if there are any grounds to investigate the Council.
10. Mr A’s complaint that the Council blocked access to healthcare and stopped his daughter’s autism support has been previously considered by us under a separate case in May 2022. I therefore cannot investigate this.
11. Mr A remains unhappy with the Council’s handling of a child protection conference and its outcome. We have considered this complaint previously under a separate case in December 2024. I therefore cannot investigate this.
12. Mr A complains the Council’s Special Educational Needs and Disability Information, advice and support (SENDIAS) team did not provide support with school meetings. I will not investigate this because there is not enough evidence of fault. The Council explained it’s SENDIAS team was unable to offer the requested support. And I note the Council’s SENDIAS team had no duty to do so.
13. Mr A says the Council’s social worker does not have the specific autism qualification needed to appropriately support his child and Ms B. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Council is not required to consult autism experts. Nor do social workers require specific autism qualifications.
14. Mr A says the Council did not consider Ms B’s reasonable adjustments regarding meetings. I cannot investigate this complaint insofar as we have addressed this under a separate case in December 2024. Regarding core group meetings of July and September 2024 only, the Council accepted it should have informed Mr A and Ms B of the professionals attending meetings beforehand. And it has taken action to prevent recurrence.
15. I appreciate Mr A is unhappy but further investigation will not add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a different outcome. Therefore, I will not investigate this.
16. Mr A says the Council did not arrange advocacy in good time. This meant Mr A had to arrange support himself. I will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about any delay in the Council arranging advocacy. This is because, on balance, any delay in this matter alone did not cause a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman