Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s refusal to allow her summer born children to enter reception out of their normal year group. We find the Council failed to properly consider whether it was in the best interests of Miss X’s children to join reception or Year One in September 2023 when they started school. Miss X was caused distress and frustration. The Council has since provided clearer reasons for its refusal that is in line with what was expected of it, which partly remedies the injustice. But, the Council has also agreed to apologise to Miss X and make a service improvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to here as Miss X, complains about the Council’s handling of her request to allow her summer born children to enter reception out of their normal year group. More specifically, she complains the Council, as the admission authority:
1. failed to apply the correct test when making its decision. She says the Council failed to consider whether it was in the best interests of her children to enter reception out of their normal year group and did not look at their individual circumstances (including their being born prematurely, their individual needs and abilities and whether these can best be met in reception). Rather, she says the Council has relied on the school’s evidence instead of reaching its own decision;
2. failed to assess the potential impact on her children of being admitted to Year One without completing reception. She says the Council decided there is no difference between the provision her children receive at nursery and reception. But, Miss X says the children’s nursery does not teach the same curriculum as reception; and,
3. failed to consider the evidence submitted from a specialist charity.
2. Miss X said she has found the process of complaining stressful and she was put to time and trouble.
3. Miss X is worried the Council’s decision restricts the choices available to her to make sure her children can begin reception when they reach compulsory school age.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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

6. I spoke with Miss X about her complaint. I considered the information and documents provided by the Council and Miss X.
7. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my first and subsequent revised draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

School Admissions – Summer Born children

8. ‘Summer born children’ are children born between 1 April and 31 August. These children are not required to start school until the September following their fifth birthday. Ordinarily, they would then start school in year one with their ‘chronological year group’.
9. Parents can request their summer born children are 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.
10. Parents decide when their children start school. The admission authority decides whether they start in reception or year one.
11. The Government has issued guidance for admission authorities deciding which year group a child should be admitted to.
12. The admission authority must:

• make decisions in the best interests of the child; and
• take account of the child’s individual needs and abilities and consider whether these can best be met in reception or year one; and
• take account of the potential impact on the child of being admitted to year one without first having completed the reception year.

13. The guidance says, “In effect, this means that the authority is making a decision about whether it would be in the child’s best interest to miss the reception year.”
14. The guidance says it is reasonable to expect parents to provide information to support their request, but they are not expected to obtain professional evidence they do not already have.
15. Admission authorities must set out clearly the process for requesting admission outside the normal year group, including what information and evidence parents should provide and when. There is no prescribed process admission authorities must follow, although the guidance notes some authorities use decision making panels to consider requests, and some invite parents to attend panel meetings.
16. The admission authority must, however, give reasons for its decision.

What happened

17. In early July 2022, Miss X made a request to the Council to delay admission to reception for her summer born children. Miss X gave details about the social, emotional and physical reasons why she thought it was in her children’s best interests to delay their start in reception until September 2023. She attached evidence from a specialist charity in support of her application. This said:

• Miss X did not think her children were socially and emotional ready to begin reception in September 2022
• if Miss X’s children started reception in September 2022, her children would be disadvantaged by the fact they were summer born children who had been born several weeks prematurely
• Miss X’s children needed help from adults with toileting, dressing and undressing
• it would be in Miss X’s children’s interests to delay starting reception as they would find it extremely difficult to start Year One in September 2023 if they had missed reception

18. A week later, the Council sent Miss X its decision letters. The Council refused Miss X’s requests to delay admission to reception at School One, a voluntary controlled school, which was a parental preference. It said the “decision to agree or refuse the request will be on the advice of the head teacher for the school. Your request for delayed admission has been considered and the Head Teacher has recommended that the request is not agreed”. The Council said it supported the views of School One’s Head Teacher.
19. Towards the end of July, Miss X complained to the Council. She said the Council had failed to assess whether it was in her children’s best interests to miss reception year. Rather, she complained the Council had relied on School One’s evidence that her children could access reception from September 2022 through a graduated parttime timetable.
20. In August, the Council sent Miss X its stage one complaint response. It did not uphold her complaint.
21. A few weeks later, Miss X asked the Council to escalate her complaint.
22. In September, the Council sent Miss X its final complaint response. It said its original refusal letters and stage one complaint response appropriately responded to the issues complained of.
23. Miss X then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

24. After considering the Council’s refusal letters from July 2022, complaint responses and connected records, I find the Council failed to provide sufficiently clear reasons to support its refusal. In my view, the correspondence with Miss X shows the Council has adopted the Head Teacher’s recommendation as its own. This is fault (part a of the complaint). Rather, the Council should have clearly set out its own view on whether, after reaching compulsory school age, it would be in the best interests of Miss X’s children to start in reception or Year One.
25. I find the Council’s contact with Miss X failed to sufficiently show how it considered the potential impact of Miss X’s children being admitted to Year One in September 2023 without first having completed reception, or that Miss X’s children would have already been educated in a different year group up until this point (part b of the complaint). The Council’s decision letters and complaint responses failed to clearly set out how it had weighed up all the evidence and took account of the parents’ views and the supporting evidence from the specialist charity (part c of the complaint).
26. In response to my first draft decision, the Council provided a sound and evidenced set of reasons to supports its decision to refuse Miss X’s request. In particular, it explained:

• how it had considered and weighed up the evidence, including the evidence provided by Miss X from the specialist charity. It provided clear reasons why it decided to give greater weight to the Head Teacher’s response in this case;
• how it had considered the individual needs of Miss X’s children. When considering Miss X’s children were born prematurely, the Council said this would not have changed its decision because Miss X’s children would have still fallen into the same year group if not born prematurely; and,
• how it had considered the potential impact of Miss X’s children being admitted to Year One in September 2023 without first having completed reception, when deciding it would be in the children’s best interests to start in Year One.

27. The Council has provided an after-the-event explanation that complies with government guidance. I find this is sufficiently clear and remedies the injustice Miss X experienced in missing out on a decision by the Council that was in line with what is expected of it. But, I have recommended the Council also apologise to Miss X to remedy the distress and frustration caused because of the fault identified.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise in writing to Miss X for the fault causing injustice.
29. Within three months of my final decision, the Council has also agreed to make the following service improvement:

• review its template decision letters to make sure it is clear that, when the Council is the admissions authority, it should give clear reasons for any refusals and that the refusal should accord with the three-part test detailed in paragraph 12 above (which is in line with the Code and government guidance)

30. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have completed my investigation.
32. I have decided to uphold parts a to c of Miss X’s complaint. This is because I have seen evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has already largely remedied the injustice caused by providing clear reasons for its decision after considering Miss X’s request afresh. But, the above recommendation is a suitable way for the Council to satisfactorily remedy the injustice caused, which it has agreed to.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman