LGO tells council to review procedures after boy misses out on education

The Local Government Ombudsman has called on a London borough to review its procedures after delays in finding a school place for a 14-year-old boy meant he missed out on almost two-and-a-half terms of education.

The Ombudsman, Dr Jane Martin, said the boy had suffered a very significant disadvantage as a result of Hillingdon Council’s maladministration. “I believe this period could have been substantially reduced if the Council had dealt with the matter properly,” she added.

The LGO launched an investigation after receiving a complaint from the boy’s mother. His mainstream secondary school had persuaded her to remove him from its roll after his behaviour caused some concern. But the mother’s applications to other schools were unsuccessful.

Dr Martin found that Hillingdon had taken certain actions, such as registering the boy on its computer system. The mother was advised to challenge the original school’s decision and ask it to reinstate her son. She also received support and advice from the Parent Partnership Officer.

But the council failed to apply its Fair Access Protocol properly, the Ombudsman said. The protocol covers children who arrive outside the normal admission round and who may have difficulty securing a school place.

Council officers believed that, given the circumstances in which the boy lost his school place, it was the mother’s responsibility to ensure he received education, not the council’s. They said it would have been a different matter had he been excluded.

However, Dr Martin said the relevant law – under s. 19 of the Education Act 1996 – applied not only to children who have been excluded but also to those who are without a school place for other reasons.

The Ombudsman said she saw no reason why the boy was not referred for alternative provision once the first round of the mother’s admission applications failed to result in an early offer of a school place.

In addition to calling on the council to review its procedures, the LGO recommended that Hillingdon pay £2,500 to the boy’s mother to be used for the boy’s educational benefit.

The LGO did not review the removal of the boy from his original school’s roll as this was outside her jurisdiction.

The Ombudsman issued a report, Out of school…out of mind?, September 2011 on the provision of a good education to children out of school. It can be viewed here.