Decision details

10.1   The Committee considered a report by the Executive Director, Communities and Public Protection and Director of Communities (copy appended to the singed minutes) which outlined a case where the County Council had not agreed to recommendations from the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

10.2   The report was introduced by David Tominey, Complaints and Representations Manager, Communities. He advised that the County Council usually accepted recommendations from the Ombudsman in relation to complaints, but on this occasion the County Council had not accepted the Ombudsman’s findings. The Committee was asked to consider whether the County Council’s stance was reasonable.

10.3   Ellie Evans, Head of Pupil Entitlement, Education and Skills, reported that the complaint had arisen from the County Council’s dealing with a student’s attendance problem. During 2015/16 the student’s poor attendance had been referred to the County Council. Various strategies were tried with the school to improve the student’s attendance. The student’s parents requested alternative provision, but did not provide any medical evidence to support their request. Because of this, the County Council did not agree to alternative provision but continued to seek improvement strategies with the school and then took the prosecution route. At a later stage, medical evidence was provided and the Council then agreed to alternative provision.

10.4   Paul Wagstaff, Director of Education and Skills, emphasised that the production of medical evidence was the key factor in the County Council agreeing to alternative provision and that if this had been provided earlier, a different stance may have been adopted at the time.

10.5   Ms Evans reported that the Ombudsman had considered the complaint from the student’s parents and had concluded that the Council should have agreed to alternative provision at an earlier stage. The County Council did not agree this, as to agree alternative provision for a student without any supporting medical evidence would set a precedent for potentially high numbers of students to apply for alternative provision.

10.6   The Committee considered the Council’s stance and was concerned by the Ombudsman’s ruling. Particularly where a school felt it could meet a student’s needs, it could not see any justification for alternative provision if no medical evidence had been produced. Lt. Col. Barton, as the local member, expressed some concern about the County Council’s initial handling of the situation, but agreed that the Ombudsman’s recommendations should not be accepted.

10.6   The Committee was concerned that any acceptance of the Ombudsman’s recommendations would set a precedent which would be difficult to address and fully agreed with the County Council’s stance that the Ombudsman’s recommendations should not be accepted. It therefore agreed that a statement of non-compliance with the Ombudsman’s recommendations should be issued by the Council and congratulated the Education and Skills Service for taking a reasonable approach.

10.7   Resolved – That the Committee does not accept the Ombudsman’s recommendations in this case, supports the County Council’s stance of non-agreement to them and agrees that a Statement of Non-Compliance be issued.