Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about problems with the Council’s IT systems used for appeals against the refusal of admission to a school. This is because there is insufficient evidence of significant injustice caused by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, complained that:
• He experienced difficulties with the Council’s portal and email (IT) systems which he used to request an appeal against the refusal of admission to his preferred school for his son; and
• The Council’s poor handling of his complaint caused additional stress and distress.

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 the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the Council and Mr X. I have also sent my draft decision to Mr X.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X wanted to appeal against the refusal of admission to his preferred school for his son. The Council manages the appeal request process for all school applications (on behalf of the school). Mr X tried to follow the Council’s instructions to submit his appeal request and supporting documents via a web form. He made nine attempts but his submission was not accepted. He then contacted the Council’s help centre and was advised to submit via email. He was not successful via this route either.
5. The Council’s IT staff advised Mr X to send future submissions via the web form as several smaller files rather than one large one. As the web form did not allow the submission of multiple files, Mr X found this advice unhelpful.
6. Mr X told us that he suffered stress and distress as a result and that this was compounded by the Council’s initial response to his complaint.
7. The Council upheld Mr X’s complaints in full. It said its web technical team had confirmed the submissions had exceeded the maximum attachment size for the form, which it said was a “known issue with the website”. The Council accepted there was no warning about this maximum limit on the site at the time.
8. In its initial complaint response, the Council denied that there was a problem with the email system but after further correspondence with Mr X, it accepted the system had not been working as it should. The Council said it had added a warning on maximum file size to its website as a result of Mr X’s complaint.
9. The Council has admitted fault. Mr X has told us that he would like the Council’s IT systems to work properly and efficiently in future, with clear instructions and guidance. The Council has amended its website to help ensure the problems Mr X suffered do not occur in future. I could not see evidence of sufficient injustice to Mr X to justify investigation.

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman