Summary: Mr B complains that the Council incorrectly applied its policy on shared or joint residence and wrongly decided his son’s normal place of residence for the purposes of applying for a school place is his mother’s address, rather than his own. The Ombudsman finds no fault on the Council’s part.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council failed to properly apply its policy on shared or joint residence and wrongly decided that his son’s normal place of residence for the purposes of applying for a school place is his mother’s address, rather than his own.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information provided by Mr B, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
5. I have written to Mr B and the Council with my draft decision and given them an opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

6. Mr B applied to the London Borough of Richmond (‘the Council’) for a place in Year 7 for his son, C. On his application form, Mr B said School X was his preferred school because “we live extremely close to the school, a stone’s throw away”.
7. The Council was unable to link Mr B or Mrs B to the address on the application form. It checked council tax records which showed the address to be registered to Mr B’s father. It also contacted C’s primary school which had a different home address for C and was not aware of any other address.
8. On 24 October 2018 the Council wrote to Mr B asking him to provide documentary evidence linking him to the address on his application. He sent a copy of his driving licence and P45 confirming the address.
9. A few days later the Council asked Mr B to explain the link to the address C’s school held. Mr B did not respond until 22 November 2018. He said C “is currently staying with his mother at the address you have in the system. However, for his secondary school he will be staying in the address shown in the application”. He also said he had contacted C’s primary school and asked them to amend the address on their records.
10. On 27 November 2018 the Council sent an email to both parents separately confirming it would use Mrs B’ address to process the application. This decision was based on Mr B’s statement in his email of 22 November 2018 that C was currently living with his mother.
11. On 4 March 2019 the London Borough of Hounslow notified Mr B of the outcome of the application. C was not offered a place at any of his preferred schools because his home address was not within the home to school distance cut off for any of them.
12. Mr B responded explaining the Council should have used his address, which is within the home to school distance cut off, and not Mrs B’s address. He said they had a shared living arrangement and C lived with him some of the time. The London Borough of Hounslow explained he would need to discuss this with the Council.
13. On 7 March 2019 Mr B sent an email to the Council asking it to change the address for C’s application. He provided information about the day-to-day care arrangements for C. He said Mrs B takes him to school in the mornings but, in the afternoons, he walks to his grandparents’ house.
14. The Council responded stating it had relied on Mr B’s email of 22 November 2018 in which he said C was currently staying with his mother but would be staying at the address on the application form when he moved to secondary school. It said this inferred Mr B had applied from his address so C would obtain a place at a secondary school close to his grandparents’ home to help with childcare arrangements. It also said Mr B’s statement that Mrs B takes C to school in the mornings suggested he lives with her. The Council confirmed the application address must be where the child is living and not based on childcare arrangements, so C’s mother’s address would be used for his school application.

Analysis

15. The Council’s policy states the address given on the application must be the one where the child is living permanently. It states, “where parents live separately, the application must be based on the address where the child lives most of the time. Where the child lives equally with both parents at different addresses, we will require evidence of your care arrangements. We will consider all available evidence that you provide in order to confirm which address we will use to process your application”.
16. Mr B says the Council incorrectly applied its policy. The Council says its decision to use Mrs B’s address rather than Mr B’s was based on the results of its requests for further information in October and November 2018, particularly Mr B’s statement on 22 November 2018 that C was living with his mother. It could not accept the address on the application form as C was not currently living there.
17. The Council notified both parents of its decision on 27 November 2018. They did not ask for the decision to be reviewed. Mr B only requested a review after he was notified that his application had been unsuccessful. At this point the Council reviewed its decision but remained of the view that C’s permanent address was his mother’s. In reaching this decision it took into account the information in Mr B’s email of 22 November 2018 and his email of 7 March 2019 which said Mrs B took C to school in the mornings. The Council considered this was further evidence that C was mainly living with her.
18. I am satisfied the Council properly considered this issue. It made enquiries of Mr B, the council tax department and C’s school and considered all the information provided. The Council has explained the reasons for its decision and that it particularly relied on information Mr B provided in his emails in deciding that C was mainly living with his mother. The Council was entitled to reach that view. In the absence of administrative fault, the Ombudsman is not authorised to question its decision which is a matter for officers’ professional judgement.
19. Mr B says the Council did not tell him what proof it needed that C was living mostly with him. However, the Council gave Mr B the opportunity to provide evidence and it considered the documents and information he provided in reaching its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I do not uphold Mr B’s complaint.
21. I have completed my investigation on the basis I am satisfied with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman