Summary: We uphold Mrs X’s complaint about the Council refusing her summer born child (Y) a delayed reception start. We find fault with its decision-making process and delay. The Council has agreed to reconvene a new Panel and ensure it is instructed to make the decision in line with the School Admissions Code and non-statutory Guidance and review its processes to improve decision communications. It will also apologise to Mrs X and pay her £150 for her avoidable frustration and inconvenience.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s refusal to offer her summer born daughter (Y) a reception start in 2023. She says the Council:
• Failed to consider her views and evidence.
• Gave undue weight to the preferred school’s headteacher’s views.
• Failed to provide proper reasons for its refusal.
2. Mrs X says the Council’s actions caused her uncertainty, frustration and time and trouble pursuing her complaint.

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 an organisation’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 discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered information provided by her and the Council.
6. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to provide comments on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation

7. Summer born children are born between 1 April and 31 August. These children do not have to start school until the September following their fifth birthday. Usually, they would then start school in year one. (Education Act 1996 and The Education (Start of Compulsory School Age) Order 1998)

School Admissions Code

8. Parents can ask for their summer born children be admitted to a reception class in the September following their fifth birthday rather than year one. This means they are educated outside their normal age group.
9. A parent cannot insist the authority admit their child to a particular year group.
10. But, upon a parent’s request the admission authority ‘must decide on the basis of the circumstances of the case and in the best interests of the child concerned’.
11. The admission authority should take account of:
• the parents’ views
• information about the child’s academic, social, and emotional development
• their medical history
• previous education outside their normal age group.
• the views of the headteacher at the school concerned.
12. When telling a parent of their decision, admission authorities must set out clearly the reasons for their decision.

Non-statutory guidance

13. Admission authorities should also take account of the potential impact on the child of being admitted into year one without first having completed the reception year.
14. To make that decision the guidance says it is reasonable for admission authorities to expect parents or guardians to provide them with information in support of their request.

What happened

15. Y is a summer born child. Her expected school start date was September 2022, but Mrs X had the choice to defer entry to 2023.
16. In December 2021, Mrs X sought a 2023 start but in reception, rather than year one. She named various schools, but her preference was School A as she believed it was best suited for Y’s development.
17. In her application, Mrs X included emails with the headteacher at School A, an article called ‘The impact of being summer born’, and a personal statement. The statement referenced information to support her views on the importance of reception including quotes from School A’s website, an article called ‘Reception- a missed opportunity’, Ofsted quotes and evidence about her past experiences with her other summer born children starting both in and out of their chronological year group.
18. Mrs X explained Y would remain in nursery with an adopted cohort until 2023. She listed disadvantages to Y’s education if she started in year one instead of reception. Mrs X believed Y would not be academically, socially, or emotionally ready for a year one start straight out of part-time nursery and needed reception to transition smoothly into school life.
19. The Council sought the views of headteachers of the schools Mrs X had named of which it was the admission authority and arranged an educational panel meeting (the Panel).
20. The headteacher at School A said:
• The early years reception learning would be too far behind what Y needed if she joined a year late.
• Evidence at the school showed summer born children did well and there was no evidence to suggest it would be different for Y.
• He could see no evidence of Y’s special educational needs to allow a delayed start other than parental choice.
• The school did not have a policy of holding spaces and Y would have to start in 2022 to guarantee a place. It also did not want to set a precedent by allowing Y a delayed start and potentially denying another student a place in 2023.

First Panel Outcome

21. In late December, the Council refused Mrs X’s request saying:
• The Panel considered her request for three of the named schools (Schools A, B and C) where it was the admission authority.
• School A said it could meet the needs of summer born children within their chronological age group. Mrs X had not provided any specific evidence of Y’s needs or circumstances showing she could not start reception with peers. The Panel agreed and could see no reason to go against the headteacher’s views.
• School B had also refused but was open to reviewing its decision if Mrs X provided further information about Y. It was also agreeable to Y starting in its nursery now and then reviewing a delayed reception start once it gained a better understanding of Y’s needs.
• School C needed further information about Y before they could offer a view. The Panel also could see no specific information about Y’s needs and circumstances to grant a reception start. But it was willing to review the decision if more information was provided.

Mrs X’s complaint and the Council’s response

22. In January 2022, Mrs X complained it was not for the Council to decide when Y started school. She also said it failed to provide reasons a year one start was in Y’s best interests. She said the Council gave undue weight to the headteachers’ views against hers, which was inconsistent with the law.
23. The Council’s response to Mrs X’s complaint:
• Clarified it only decided which year group Y joined on starting school, not when she would start, which remained Mrs X’s decision.
• Agreed it could not see evidence of how the decision to reject the request for a school place out of her normal age group was taken in Y’s best interests. It said the Admissions Team should provide Mrs X further information to address this point.
• The Panel had taken the views of headteachers into account as required by law. But it had also considered Mrs X’s views and evidence in reaching its decision.
24. The Council agreed to reconvene the Panel in March and asked Mrs X to send further information about Y to help it decide. The Council went on to say last time, members had difficulties commenting on Y’s best interests as they did not have any specific information about her needs and circumstances.
25. Mrs X provided her updated views with a letter from Y’s preschool which listed reasons why a delayed entry into reception was important for Y. Mrs X’s MP also sent a supporting letter highlighting relevant law.
26. The records show the Council received updated views from the headteachers at Schools A, B and C before the meeting. The headteachers’ positions remained unchanged. Mrs X also approached two other schools in this period which were willing to accept Y In reception in 2023.
27. Mrs X emailed the Council in April chasing the Panel’s decision without success. She therefore approached the Ombudsman.
28. In August, the admissions officer emailed Mrs X saying she had been on sick leave after the meeting and had been attending to other duties. She apologised for the delay.

Reconvened Panel

29. The records show the Panel received Mrs X’s further information. However, it upheld its decision for schools A to C, on similar grounds to the first Panel.
30. The Panel’s meeting notes do not explain how it considered Mrs X’s views and supporting evidence. The Panel agreed all the schools had provisions to adequately support summer born children in their normal cohort. They agreed with Mrs X that reception was an important year but did not think Y’s entry should be delayed. This was because Mrs X had not provided any evidence showing Y had a developmental delay compared with peers which needed this adjustment.
31. The Council emailed Mrs X explaining the Panel had difficulties because of a lack specific information about Y’s needs or circumstances. The Council said these could be academic or social reasons. However, without this information the Panel was unable to form a view as to how it would be in Y’s best interests to delay reception. The Council also said Mrs X’s evidence was general in nature. The Panel was also aware Mrs X had a choice of other schools which were willing to take Y with a reception start. For these reasons the Panel was unwilling to override the headteacher’s views.

Was there fault and did it cause injustice?

i) Mrs X says the Council failed to consider her views, evidence and its refusal was not in Y’s best interests.

32. The records show the Council obtained Mrs X’s views and evidence as required by the Code (see paragraph 11). It also sought the views of the headteachers at the selected schools. I do not find the Council at fault in relation to this point.
33. The decision for the reconvened Panel was which year group (reception or year one) would be in Y’s best interests to join. The Code required the Council to make this decision based on the ‘circumstances of the case and in the child’s best interests’ (see paragraph 10).
34. However, the reconvened Panel said they did not think Y’s entry should be delayed. This was not a decision for the Panel. The law and School Admissions Code are clear that it was for Y’s parents to decide whether to delay her entry to school. Once Mrs X had told the Council she intended to delay Y’s start, the only decision for the Panel was which year group was in Y’s best interests to join. The reconvened Panel therefore fell into the same trap as the first Panel by deciding Y should start reception before compulsory school age. This was her parent’s decision and not the Panel’s. The Panel failed to act within the law or guidance. This was fault.
35. The Council said it had difficulties because Mrs X did not provide appropriate information. However, it was still a decision it was required to make. I find fault with the Council’s decision making. This caused Mrs X avoidable uncertainty and frustration about whether her request would have been accepted if the Council had followed the correct decision-making process.
36. The Guidance also required the Council to consider the potential impact on Y in being admitted into year one without first having completed reception (see paragraph 13). Mrs X’s personal statement and the letter from Y’s pre-school address this issue. The Council’s outcome email and reconvened Panel meeting notes do not clearly show how the Panel considered the points Mrs X and the pre-school had made. This is fault which caused Mrs X avoidable uncertainty and frustration, about whether the Panel considered Y’s personal circumstances properly or at all.

ii) Mrs X says the Council gave undue weight to the preferred school’s headteacher’s views

37. Mrs X feels the Council took a biased approach in favour of the views of the Headteacher at School A. However, there is no evidence in the records to support this. I note the Panel decided about each school for different reasons suggesting information was objectively assessed.
38. However, the headteacher at School A provided reasons (see paragraph 20) which included Y not having any special educational needs and not wishing to set a precedent by granting a place on Mrs X’s evidence alone. But the Code does not explicitly require parents to provide expert evidence or support a rigid approach based on past decisions. It requires the decision be in the child’s best interests in the circumstances of the case. The Council should have clearly explained which of the headteachers’ views it had agreed with in refusing Mrs X’s request. This lack of clarity was poor communication which caused Mrs X distress, uncertainty, and frustration because she believed the Council was accepting views which were inconsistent with the law in its refusal.

iii) Mrs X says the Council failed to provide proper reasons for its refusal.

39. The Panel met in March, but the Council did not let Mrs X have its decision until almost five months later. This delay was excessive and fault. It caused Mrs X avoidable uncertainty, frustration and time and trouble pursuing her complaint. The Council apologised for this which is a partial remedy.
40. The Council’s email to Mrs X with the reconvened Panel’s decision only provides a short summary of why the Panel decided to refuse Mrs X request. It is similar to the Panel’s previous decision and gives the impression that information and evidence may not have been properly considered to justify a rejection. It does not explain why the Panel decided it was in Y’s best interests to start in year one. This lack of clarity was poor communication which caused Mrs X avoidable confusion and uncertainty.

Back to top

Agreed action

41. The Council has agreed within a month of my final decision to:
• Write to Mrs X and apologise for the faults identified in this statement.
• Reconvene a new Panel with different members to consider Mrs X’s request for an admission into reception class in September 2023 ensuring the Panel is instructed to decide only on which year group is in Y’s best interests and giving full written reasons for its decision.
• Review its internal processes to address communication delays and ensure panel outcome letters clearly set out evidence of decision-making with clear reasons in feedback to parents.
• Pay Mrs X £150 for her avoidable frustration and time and trouble.
42. The Council should also provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

43. We uphold Mrs X’s complaint about the Council refusing her summer born child (Y) a delayed reception start. We find fault with its decision-making process and delay. The Council should reconvene a Panel and ensure it is instructed to make the decision in line with the School Admissions Code and non-statutory Guidance and review its internal processes to improve decision communications. It will also apologise to Mrs X and pay her £150 for her avoidable frustration and inconvenience.
44. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman