Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse her child a place at her preferred school. She said the appeal panel failed to consider her child’s personal circumstances. She also said the school place the Council allocated for her child is too far to travel. We discontinued our investigation. That is because the Council offered Mrs X a new appeal. That is in line with the remedy the Ombudsman may have recommended. Further investigation was unlikely to lead to a different outcome and there was no other worthwhile outcome achievable by continuing the investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse her child a place at her preferred school. She said the appeal panel failed to consider her child’s personal circumstances. She also said the school place the Council allocated for her child is too far to travel.
2. Mrs X said her child is anxious and scared to travel by bus alone and does not have friends at the school the Council allocated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mrs X provided.
6. Mrs 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

What happened

7. Mrs X applied for a school place for her child, who is under 16 years old. The school (which I will call school one) she applied for was one Mrs X liked and was located nearby to where the family shortly planned to move.
8. Unfortunately, the house move was delayed. At the time of Mrs X’s application, the family lived outside of school one’s catchment area. The application was unsuccessful.
9. The Council offered Mrs X’s child a place at another school (which I will call school two). Mrs X turned the offer down and appealed against the decision.
10. By the time of the appeal hearing, Mrs X and her family had moved into their new home. The new home is within school one’s catchment area.
11. The walking distance from the new home to school two is more than three miles. This exceeds the statutory walking distance for children aged 8 to 16.
12. Mrs X argued it was too far for her child to travel and the journey would involve more than one bus. Mrs X said her child was anxious and scared to take the bus alone.
13. The appeal panel upheld the Council’s decision. It said school one was full, and it was reasonable for Mrs X’s child to travel to school two.

Analysis

14. When Mrs X brought her complaint to us, she had completed the appeal process. The appeal panel had reached a final decision to dismiss Mrs X’s appeal.
15. During my investigation, the Council conducted a review and decided to offer Mrs X a new appeal.
16. If I completed my investigation and found the Council at fault, it is likely I may have recommended a new appeal.
17. In light of this new information, I do not consider further investigation would lead to a different outcome. I also do not consider there is any worthwhile outcome achievable by continuing the investigation.
18. I therefore discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I discontinued my investigation. That is because the Council offered Mrs X a new appeal. That is in line with the remedy the Ombudsman may have recommended. Further investigation was unlikely to lead to a different outcome and there was no other worthwhile outcome achievable by continuing the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman