Summary: Mr X complained about the advice the Council gave him when applying for a Reception place for his child to his preferred school. He also complained about the delay in offering an alternative school. We have discontinued the investigation as Mr X no longer wants a place at his preferred school and there is no worthwhile outcome we could achieve by further investigating the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X and his ex-partner Ms Y have shared custody of their child. Mr X complained the Council misadvised them about changing the address on their application form for a Reception place so they were unreasonably refused a place at their preferred school. It then delayed offering an alternative school so their child started school after the start of term and they were unable to secure after-school provision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the information supplied by Mr X and have spoken to him on the telephone. I have considered the information supplied by the Council in response to our initial enquiries.
4. I gave Mr X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered the comments I received in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X and Ms Y have shared custody of their child. They live in different council areas. Their child attended nursery at a school (School Z) in the London Borough of Waltham Forest, which is the area where Mr X lives. In November 2018, Mr X submitted a primary school application to the council area where Ms Y lives (Council B) and used Ms Y’s address as the child’s address. Mr X’s only preference on the application from was for a Reception place at School Z. Waltham Forest’s admission arrangements state that if parents have equal custody ‘they must select one parent’s address to be used for the application’. It goes on to say that ‘If the child spends equal amounts of time at two addresses, the parents must agree which address they wish to be the child’s main address before we can process the application’.
6. Mr X telephoned Waltham Forest at the end of November. He says he explained the situation and was told at that time the Council could not make changes to the application but the Council’s Admissions Team would contact him if it required further information. He does not recall being asked what the address was.
7. In April 2019 Mr X received an email from Council B which stated his child had not got a place at School Z. It offered a school in Council B’s area. Mr X telephoned Council B who told him to contact Waltham Forest.
8. Mr X called Waltham Forest and asked them to change the child’s home address. He says he was told to send an email.
9. Ms Y emailed Waltham Forest in April 2019. In the email Ms Y asked that Waltham Forest use Mr X’s address and requested a place at School Z. In early May 2019 Ms Y submitted an appeal to Waltham Forest against the refusal of a place to School Z. Waltham Forest responded on 15 May 2019. It noted it had received the child’s application and she would be notified of the outcome.
10. On the appeal form Ms Y used her address as the child’s address and stated she and Mr X had joint custody and they wanted to use Mr X’s address as their child’s address for the school application. She requested a place at School Z.
11. Mr X and Ms Y attended the appeal in July 2019. The notes of the appeal recorded Mr X and Ms Y had joint custody. The Admissions Authority explained only one address could be used on the application. For the address to be changed the parents would need to make a fresh application. At the appeal Mr X and Ms Y explained Mr X lived close to the school and Mr X looked after the child during the week. They stated that Ms Y had called Waltham Forest about the change of address and was told she could put both addresses. She also wrote to change the address in April 2019.
12. The Panel accepted the admission arrangements were lawful and were correctly applied. It agreed to admit another child would breach the infant class limit (the law says the size of an infant class must not be more than 30 pupils per teacher). It noted the new address was not provided until April 2019, after the closing date for applications. It therefore refused the appeal.
13. In September 2019 Waltham Forest offered Mr X’s child a place at an alternative school. Mr X refused this and found a place at a more convenient local school in late September 2019. His child now attends this school and Mr X does not want a place at School Z. Mr X says he could not find an after-school place due to the late start and it was more difficult for his child to settle because of starting late.

Findings

14. It is unlikely I could now establish exactly what was discussed with Mr X when he first rang Waltham Forest in November 2018. If I were to investigate this further and did find fault, the appropriate remedy would be to recommend a place at School Z or a fresh appeal. Mr X and Ms Y have already had an appeal, and it is worth noting that for the appeal Mr X and Ms Y again used Ms Y’s address for the child. Also, Mr X’s child has settled at their current school and Mr X no longer wants a place at School Z. So, there is no worthwhile outcome I could achieve by investigating this issue further.
15. Ms Y emailed Waltham Forest in April 2019 and asked that it change her child’s address. Mr X says the Council did not action this until after the appeal in July. Even if the Authority had changed the address earlier as this was after the day in April when the Council makes its offer for school places, I cannot say what places Mr X could have been offered or whether he would have considered an alternative offer until the appeal result was known. Had Mr X’s appeal been successful his child would have been allocated a place at School Z.
16. Mr X’s child started school later than other children but I cannot say this is a significant injustice. Reception children are not legally required to start school until the term after their fifth birthday. Mr X’s child was four and so not legally required to start school. Mr X says he was unable to obtain an after-school place but the Council is not responsible for the provision of after school support.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have discontinued my investigation as there is no worthwhile outcome I can achieve by further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman