Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse her request for delayed entry to reception for her summer born twins. We found the Council was at fault because it failed to properly consider whether a delayed entry was in their best interests. This caused Mrs X distress and frustration. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X. It will also take action to improve its service.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly consider her application for her twins to start their formal education in reception in September 2025. She says the Council failed to follow government guidance and ignored information about the twins’ special needs and from the school and an expert in the field.
2. She says this has caused significant distress and frustration.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future 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 considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law, guidance and policy

Compulsory school age

7. Children are not required to start school until they reach ‘compulsory school age’ (CSA). A child begins to be of CSA ‘following the prescribed day following the child’s fifth birthday, or if it falls on a prescribed day. The prescribed days are 31 December, 31 March, and 31 August. (Education Act 1996, section 8, and The Education (Start of Compulsory School Age) Order 1998)

Summer born admissions

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.

The School Admission Code (2021)

10. This statutory guidance (the Code) states admission authorities must make clear in their admission arrangements the process for requesting admission out of the normal age group. It also says that admission authorities must make decisions on the basis of the circumstances of each case and in the best interests of the child concerned. This will include taking account of:

• the parent’s views; information about the child’s academic, social, and emotional development;
• where relevant, their medical history and the views of a medical professional;
• whether they have previously been educated out of their normal age group;
• whether they may naturally have fallen into a lower age group if it were not for being born prematurely.

11. They must also take into account the views of the head teacher of the school concerned.
12. When informing a parent of their decision on the year group the child should be admitted to, the admission authority must set out clearly the reasons for their decision.

Advice on the admission of summer born children (July 2022)

13. The government issued non-statutory guidance (the Guidance) for admission authorities deciding which year group a child should be admitted to.
14. Non-statutory guidance is intended to support councils in decision making. We expect admission to follow the advice given in non-statutory guidance or explain their reasons for not following it.
15. When making a decision, the Guidance says the admission authority must:

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

16. The government revised its Guidance in April 2023. It added that, “It should be rare for an authority to refuse a parent’s request.” It also stated, “the government believes it is rarely in a child’s best interests to miss a year of their education, for example, by beginning primary school in year one.”
17. The advice notes that, “There is no expectation that children who were admitted out of their normal age group should be moved to their normal age group. As with other children, they should remain in the age group to which they were admitted unless there are sound educational reasons to do otherwise.”

The Council’s admissions policy

18. Where a parent wants their child to be admitted to reception out of their normal age group, they should first contact the prospective school.
19. The request will be decided by a panel (the Panel), along with the relevant headteacher.
20. The decision of the Panel is final. Re-hearings can only be granted if significant new evidence has been provided.

What happened

21. Mrs X is the mother of twins, born in August 2020. They were born five weeks premature. Mrs X believed it would be in their best interests to delay the start to their compulsory school education in reception to September 2025, the term shortly after their fifth birthday. She provided details of the twins’ developmental issues and SEN, together with a letter of support from the headteacher.
22. This request was considered the Panel. Her request was refused.
23. The Council’s decision letter set out several reasons why it was not in the twins’ best interests to start in reception in September 2025. The same reasons were given for both children. These reasons are summarised below.

• Nurseries and schools all have transition arrangements to facilitate transfers to other settings, regardless of background and special needs.
• The twins would be the oldest in reception and may become disinterested and bored, due to repeating areas she had covered in nursery.
• Reception is not formal education and is simar to nursery.
• It is beneficial to be with their age-related cohort as they grow up.
• A special request would have to be made to ensure delayed entry for secondary school.

24. Mrs X asked the Council to review its decision. By way of supporting evidence, she submitted:

• a letter from the deputy headteacher of her chosen primary school stating she agreed to the delayed entry;
• a letter from a Consultant for Education (the Consultant) at the Twins Trust, a charity offering support to multiple birth parents. This provided a detailed analysis, with reference to the twins’ specific needs, with the conclusion that it was her professional opinion that this was “an obvious case for a delayed start”. She also expressed concerns about the reasons given by the Council for refusing the request; and
• information about the twins’ special needs and delayed development.

25. Again, the Panel refused the request. Comments from the Panel that supported this decision included:

• “may have ASD but not got a diagnosis yet”;
• “information from the Twins trust is based on general impact upon children of multiple births”; and
• “not necessarily known how significant support needs are”.

26. Mrs X was told this was the final decision and there was no right of further appeal.
27. Instead, Mrs X made a formal complaint. She said she had seen a letter sent to another parent that was identical, save for the name of the child.
28. In response, the Council:

• accepted it was a template letter, but this did not negate its content;
• explained the decision was based on specific circumstances and the Panel did not find sufficient grounds to support the request for delayed entry; and
• the decision could be reviewed if further evidence was provided.

29. Disappointed by this outcome, Mrs X brought her compliant to the Ombudsman. Since doing so, the Panel considered new evidence and agreed the twins’ entry into reception should be deferred to September 2025. Despite achieving this outcome, Mrs X asked the Ombudsman to continue with the investigation because of the way the Council had handled the matter from the outset
30. In response to my enquiries, the Council believed it had handled the matter correctly and made the following observations in support of this view.

• It had not been clearly demonstrated that the educational progress which could reasonably be expected could not be achieved with their age-appropriate cohort by making reasonable adjustments.
• Information provided by Mrs X was non-specific to each child “in the main”.
• Receipt of special needs support did not necessarily justify a delayed start.
• Information from the Twins Trust was generic and not based on an assessment of the twins.
• The twins were only two weeks premature in terms of development.

Analysis

31. The starting point is that parents of summer born children can ask for their child to start school at age five in reception. The Council does not have to agree to the request. It must decide if, after reaching compulsory school age, it would be in the child’s best interests to start in reception or year one. When reaching this decision, it must take account of all relevant considerations.
32. I have found several areas of fault in the way the Council considered Mrs X’s request.

The initial decision

33. I find the initial refusal letter failed to provide sufficiently clear, evidence-based reasons for supporting the decision to refused deferred entry. This is a requirement of the Code.
34. Mrs X raised a concern about the first decision letter because of its generic nature. I share her view because it failed to refer to the twins’ individual circumstances set out in Mrs X’s request letter (for example, their premature birth and various special educational needs). Several reasons were given to justify refusal, all of which could apply to any summer born child making a similar application. For example, Mrs X was told, “schools are expected to differentiate the curriculum to allow for learning to be quickly accelerated from a lower level to age appropriate” and that reception duplicated much of what happens at nursery.
35. In my view, this rationale, together with other generic reasons given in the decision letter, would make it extremely unlikely any request would be granted.
36. In addition, the Code states the Council must take account of the view of the headteacher. The headteacher was in agreement with the delayed entry but this was not referenced in the decision letter or Panel notes, despite there being a section for this to be included. This adds further weight to my concern that the Council did not properly consider the facts of this case when making its decision and did not take account of relevant evidence.
37. I also have concerns about the identical letter being sent for both twins. One child had a potential for an autism diagnosis and the other did not. There is no evidence this was explored by the Panel. Nor was it referenced in the letter, and it should have been.
38. Overall, I am satisfied the Council acted with fault.

The second decision

39. Mrs X was understandably frustrated by the decision letters she received and asked the Council to reconsider. To assist her case, she provided a letter of support from the Twins Trust and another letter from the school.
40. As before, I have concerns about the Council’s analysis, repeated in its response to my enquiries. Although I am satisfied the Panel was aware of the twins’ circumstances by referencing their SEN and premature birth, I found the conclusions drawn were not supported by the available evidence.
41. For example, the Consultant’s conclusion was assessed as being, “based on the general impact upon children of multiple births”. This is incorrect. The letter described discussions with Mrs X in which she explained the twins’ circumstances and their development in some detail. The Consultant’s conclusion was clearly based on these discussions and was not simply a statement of "general impact” of multiple births.
42. The Panel’s assessment of the available evidence casts doubt on whether it gave the Consultant’s professional opinion sufficient weight when making its decision. Her letter clearly stated several reasons why a deferred entry was in the twins’ best interests that were evidence based.
43. While the Council was the decision maker and it was still open to it to make the decision it did, my concern here is that the assessor gave insufficient weight to the content of the letter on the basis it was viewed as a generic analysis, when it clearly it was not.
44. There was also a repeated failure to demonstrate the opinion of the school was considered, despite a strongly supportive letter from the assistant headteacher being provided.
45. Nor can I see the Council properly considered the very significant issue of the twins’ prematurity. Simply saying “it has an impact”, was, in my view, inadequate.
46. Overall, I am satisfied the Council acted with fault when making the second decision. It took an overly restrictive approach, and did not take account of the Guidance that states it is rarely in the child’s best interest to miss reception.

Back to top

Agreed action

47. Within four weeks from the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to take the following action.
1. Apologise in writing to Mrs X.
2. Pay Mrs X £150 as a symbolic payment to acknowledge her distress and frustration caused by the faults I have identified.
3. Remind Panel members and staff who deal with deferred entry requests of the requirements set out in the Admissions Code and relevant guidance. It should also provide those staff with a copy of this decision statement.
4. Take action to ensure decision letters include a meaningful analysis of why the Council has reached a decision about what is in the best interests of the specific child
48. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

49. I find fault causing injustice to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy her injustice and improve its service. On this basis I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman