Summary: The Council is at fault for withdrawing an offer of a place for Ms X’s child at her preferred school when she moved to a new house. The Council failed to establish the relevant facts and apply its Admissions Policy to Ms X’s case. The appeal panel failed to consider if the policy was properly applied. The Council should re-offer the place.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council wrongly withdrew an offer of a school place at her preferred school when she moved to a new house.
2. As a result, Ms X says her child, whom I shall call Z, has not been in education since September 2020 because Z’s physical health means Z cannot travel to the school to which they were admitted.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. I spoke to Ms X about the complaint.
6. I considered the information provided by the Council, including the panel clerk’s contemporaneous notes and the panel decision.
7. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Admission Appeals

8. Independent appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. The panel must consider whether:
• the admission arrangements comply with the law;
• the admission arrangements were properly applied to the case.
• The panel must then consider whether admitting another child would prejudice the education of others.
9. If the panel finds there would be prejudice the panel must then consider each appellant’s individual arguments. If the panel decides the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal.
10. The Ombudsman does not question the merits of decisions properly taken. The panel is entitled to come to its own judgment about the evidence it hears.

What happened

11. Ms X applied for a school place for Z at a secondary school. Z was offered a place at this preferred school.
12. However, between making the application for a place and being offered a place, Ms X and her family moved house.
13. Ms X did not tell the Council about the move until several months later. When
    Ms X informed the Council of the move, the Council withdrew the offer. Ms X appealed.
14. At the time of making the offer, the Council was not aware Ms X had moved. It says this means it made the offer in error. The school’s admissions criteria include a catchment area. Ms X’s new address falls outside this area.
15. The panel decided admitting another child would prejudice the education of others. It considered Ms X’s submissions about Z’s health and ability to travel to the other school.
16. The panel decided Ms X’s case did not outweigh the prejudice to the school and so refused the appeal.

My findings

17. A council can only withdraw an offer if it has offered it in error, a parent/carer has not responded to the offer within a reasonable period of time, or it is proven the offer was gained through a fraudulent or intentionally misleading application. (School Admissions Code 2014, section 2.12)
18. The clerk’s notes show the appeal panel decided “the withdrawal of the place was legitimately considered” in relation to the relevant section of the School Admissions Code.
19. However, the panel failed to establish when Ms X moved house in order to make sure the Council had correctly applied its Admissions Policy. There is no evidence it considered whether the withdrawal was in line with the Council’s Admissions Policy at all. This is fault.
20. Had it done so, it would have referred to the parts of the Council’s Admissions Policy which cover house moves. The Policy applies different criteria based on when the change of address occurs. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the policy says:

“10.2 If a child moves after the closing date but before the offers have been made, The Council will assess the application from where they lived at the closing date. Once the decisions have been made on National Offer Day we will update the address for waiting list purposes if we haven’t been able to offer you your preferred school.”

“10.3 If a child changes address after the National Offer Day and wants to keep the place at the school they have been offered, the application will be reassessed from their new address, to see if they would have been offered a place.  If a parent would not have been offered a place from their new address the application may be withdrawn.”

21. In response to my enquiries, the Council says that because Ms X did not tell the Council she had moved until after National Offer Day, the relevant part of its Admissions Policy is 10.3.
22. However, Ms X moved to a new house in December. That is, after the closing date but before National Offer Day. This is the scenario covered by 10.2 of the Policy.
23. The policy does not say that the date of notification is taken to be the relevant date for determining admissions. It says, “if a child moves”. A plain reading of the policy suggests the relevant date is therefore the date of the move. There is no evidence the Council asked Ms X when she moved in order to establish which part of the policy applied. This is fault.
24. Instead, it appears the Council assumed that the date in May when she called was the date of the move, leading it to apply the wrong part of its policy.
25. Ms X should have told the Council more promptly about the move. However, given the policy says the address at the closing date is the address it uses to decide admissions, the outcome for Z should not have been affected by when
    Ms X informed the Council about the move. Therefore, I find the Council wrongly withdrew Z’s offer of a school place.
26. As a result, Z was denied the opportunity to attend the preferred school from September 2020. This is an injustice to Z.

Back to top

Agreed Action

27. To remedy the injustice to Z from the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Ms X
• Offer Z a place at the preferred school
28. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation. There is fault by the appeal panel and the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman