Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to treat his child’s absences from school as unauthorised and to threaten prosecution because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. In addition, some of Mr X’s complaints are late or about matters we have no jurisdiction to consider.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council and his child’s school have treated his child’s absences from school as unauthorised and threatened prosecution. He also complains the Council has not provided alternative provision for his child who was unable to attend school due to medical needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We also cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complains the Council threatened prosecution for his child’s school absences. The Council confirmed it does not intend to prosecute Mr X at this time. Given this, an investigation is not justified as there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.
8. Mr X wants the Council to withdraw the caution he received before an interview. The caution Mr X received is known as a ‘PACE’ (Police and Criminal Evidence Act) caution. This is a procedural action to ensure interviewees are aware of their rights and to ensure fairness in the process. This caution cannot be withdrawn. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.
9. Mr X also says that the school was wrong to record his child’s absences as unauthorised. We cannot consider the actions of a school and therefore we cannot investigate this complaint.
10. Mr X says the Council did not provide alternative provision when his child was unable to attend school in 2021. This happened more than 12 months ago, and I do not consider there are good reasons to investigate this late complaint.
11. We can consider matters that have happened within 12 months. However, the Council had provided Mr X’s child with alternative provision since October 2023. Further, I understand Mr X’s child is now attending a school placement that is suitable for his needs.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable. In addition, we will not investigate parts of Mr X’s complaint that are late or about the actions of a school.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman