Deborah Allen explains how ASCL’s Hotline Team supports leaders with practical, confidential advice. In this issue, she focuses on parents, complaints and subject access requests (SARS), to help protect staff time and wellbeing.

Clear calm boundaries

One of the sharpest rises in in recent years hasn’t been about safeguarding, funding or inspections. It’s been about parental complaints. Specifically, time-intensive, repetitive and increasingly tactical complaints, that arrive with the polish and authority of something generated by artificial intelligence. 

Handled badly, these types of complaints can erode leadership capacity and focus on pupils. Handled well, though, and crucially, within the framework of statutory guidance, schools can be firm, lawful and proportionate without appearing defensive or dismissive

Protection through procedure

In England, the DfE says every school must have a complaints procedure. That’s not just a box-ticking exercise; it’s a form of protection. A clear procedure slows the pace, sets boundaries and prevents leaders from being dragged into reactive communication cycles. 

The guidance itself (see the DfE’s maintained school complaints procedures guidance here tinyurl.com/knxnj9wm and for academies here tinyurl.com/chz7ybb3) advises focusing on complaints rather than complainants. That distinction matters. Labelling a parent as ‘vexatious’ is rarely helpful; instead, identifying when a complaint has become serial, unreasonable or persistent is more constructive. 

In practice, this means schools can group multiple emails on the same issue together, rather than treating each one as a fresh case. If nothing new is being raised, there’s no obligation to re-investigate. And if a parent attempts to bypass stages, escalate prematurely or impose their own deadlines, schools can reasonably refuse and redirect back to the appropriate stage.

What ‘reasonable’ really means 

One of the most common messages we share on the Hotline is simple: reasonable does not mean endless. 

Schools can lawfully refuse to re-open a complaint that has already been fully investigated and concluded. They can decline to respond to repeated correspondence that adds nothing new. They can also insist on sticking to their published process, limiting communication channels and avoiding being drawn into sprawling exchanges of questions that go far beyond the original issue or purpose. 

The DfE’s model policies explicitly support this. They recognise that excessive contact, unrealistic demands and pressure for immediate responses can justify tighter boundaries, for example, moving to a single point of contact or written communication only. 

These measures aren’t about ‘winning’ against parents. They’re about protecting staff and ensuring schools can function effectively. The key is proportionality, clear record-keeping and communicating decisions in writing so there is a consistent audit trail. 

When SARs enter the picture 

Alongside complaints, schools are seeing a steady rise in SARs. Though often legitimate, at other times, they appear designed to create workload, fish for errors or identify inconsistencies in communication. Under data protection law, individuals have a right to access their personal data. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) provides detailed guidance on this (see tinyurl.com/mvy6s9vb). 

SARs can be refused if ‘manifestly unfounded’ or ‘manifestly excessive’, but the threshold is high. A request might be unfounded if it is clearly intended to harass or disrupt. It might be excessive if it repeats earlier requests without reasonable interval or overlaps significantly with information already provided (see tinyurl.com/56atwyv4). 

If refusing to comply with a request, clear reasoning must be demonstrated, decisions carefully documented and requesters informed of their right to complain to the ICO. A blanket refusal without explanation is likely to create more problems than it solves. 

The AI factor 

A growing number of complaints now arrive in a particular style: long, formally structured, legally framed and often sent in clusters. They may include extensive lists of questions, sweeping allegations and multiple references to legislation or statutory frameworks. 

Artificial intelligence has changed how complaints look and feel, but not the law or the expectations placed on schools. 

Schools are not required to respond to every point raised in a lengthy submission. Instead, they can ask parents to clarify or prioritise the issues that genuinely need addressing. They can treat multiple communications about the same matter as a single complaint or SAR. They can also decline to engage with speculative or hostile language where no new issue is introduced. 

Most importantly, they can take reasonable time to respond, based on their own published processes, not the timetables demanded. Remember: complexity does not equal urgency. 

Governance: The quiet safeguard 

Many of the most challenging cases we encounter don’t start badly. They begin with well-intentioned leaders trying to be helpful by meeting parents informally, replying quickly to emails, involving governors or trustees early and attempting to resolve matters swiftly. 

Over time, though, those good intentions can create expectations that are difficult to sustain or manage consistently. 

Strong governance provides a safety net. That means clear delegation of complaints handling, governors and trustees acting as reviewers rather than investigators, and consistent messaging across the school or trust. It also means record-keeping that is factual, neutral and contemporaneous, something that becomes invaluable if a complaint escalates further. 

Where schools drift away from their established procedures, they often find themselves dealing with the consequences for months, sometimes unnecessarily. 

Looking after your staff 

Persistent or aggressive complaints are not just an administrative burden; they’re a wellbeing issue. Staff on the receiving end of repeated allegations or SARs can feel personally targeted and professionally undermined over time. However, there are practical steps schools can take. Limiting direct contact between complainants and individual staff members is often essential. Insisting that concerns are raised formally, rather than through informal channels, helps maintain boundaries. And unacceptable behaviour should always be addressed explicitly, separate from the substance of any complaint. 

The DfE guidance is clear in that it supports schools to act where unreasonable behaviour impacts the running of an establishment or the wellbeing of staff. 

Final thoughts 

Most parents raise concerns because they care. A very small number do so for other reasons – seeking control, leverage or, occasionally, retribution. Being able to tell the difference, and respond appropriately, is now a core leadership skill. 

The strongest protection for schools isn’t toughness: it’s clarity. With clear procedures, clear boundaries and clear records in place, leaders can stay focused on what really matters: children’s education and staff wellbeing. 

And when the situation starts to feel less than clear? Pick up the phone. The ASCL Hotline is there to help you navigate these pressures with confidence, professionalism and a steady, experienced hand when it matters most.

---

ASCL Hotline 

Here when you need us

Open: Monday to Friday, 8.30am–5pm (excluding UK public holidays) 

Telephone: 0116 2991122 

Email: hotline@ascl.org.uk  

---

Confidentiality and Legal Note: 

All contact with the ASCL Hotline is treated as highly confidential. Advice provided via the Hotline is general guidance based on  service and employment law. Please also refer to the ASCL Legal and Member Support Policy (www.ascl.org.uk/LegalandMemberSupportPolicy) and online resources available to members at www.ascl.org.uk

---

Deborah Allen
ASCL Deputy Director of Member Support and Head of Hotline
@ascl-uk.bsky.social

Designed with IMPACT

© 2026 Association of School and College Leaders | Valid XHTML | Contact us