Facts: Hillingdon named a school on ER’s son’s Statement of Special Educational Needs, which was not ER’s preferred choice. Her appeal to the SENDIST succeeded. She complained to the LGO about Hillingdon’s failure to make educational provision for her son, in consequence of its naming decision. The LGO declined jurisdiction.

Judgment: the Court of Appeal (Moore-Bick, Aikens and Bean LJJ) held that the LGO had been right to decline jurisdiction, in that the naming decision fell within and was excluded by section 26(6)(a) of the Local Government Act 1974, as an appealable decision. The LGO’s jurisdiction had been expanded by the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to investigate service failures but that did not assist ER because the failure to provide ER’s son with education was inextricably linked with the naming decision, which the LGO was barred from investigating.