Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consultation into changes to its school admission arrangements. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained about the Council’s consultation into changes to its school admission arrangements. Mr X says there were mistakes in the information presented and this changed during the consultation process. Mr X says the information presented was hard to understand and this made it difficult to respond to the proposals. Mr X said the Council should pause the consultation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

School Admissions

6. The Government has published statutory guidance on school admissions in the School Admissions Code. This sets out the responsibilities of admission authorities, governing bodies, and councils.
7. All schools must have admission arrangements that clearly set out how they will admit children. This includes the oversubscription criteria the admission authority will use if there are more applications than places. Admission arrangements also need to include the school’s Published Admission Number (PAN) which is the number of places the admission authority will normally offer. Admission arrangements are determined by the admission authority. For community-controlled schools this is the Council.
8. Admission authorities must set (determine) admission arrangements annually. Where the admission authority proposes changes, it must consult on them. Consultation must be for a minimum of six weeks and take place between 01 October and 31 January of the school year before they apply. During the consultation, admission authorities must publish a copy of their proposed arrangements, including PANs and details of where interested parties can send comments.
9. Once arrangements have been determined, objections can be made to the Schools Adjudicator. Objections must be made by 15 May of the determination year.
10. Under the system of coordinated admissions parents apply to the local authority in which they live. Parents can express a preference for at least three schools. Parents then receive a single offer from their local authority at the highest preference school at which a place is available.

Background

11. Brighton & Hove City Council (the Council) is the admission authority for various schools in its area. Between 06 December 2024 and 31 January 2025, it consulted on changes to its school’s admission arrangements. The consultation also included changes to the Council’s coordinated admissions scheme. The arrangements would apply for children starting or moving schools in September 2026.
12. The Council’s Cabinet approved the consultation process which followed an engagement exercise. This had included public meetings and the opportunity to comment via the Council’s engagement portal. The engagement exercise contributed to the development of the proposals the Council consulted on.
13. The changes consulted on included:
• Changes to the PANs and catchment areas of several schools.
• Amendments to the oversubscription criteria which give priority to pupils eligible for Free School Meals (FSM). The recommendation was to set this at a maximum of 30 percent of each school’s PAN.
• A new oversubscription criterion referred to as ‘Open Admissions’. Some areas in the Council include one secondary school, while others include two. The new criterion would be set at 20 percent of the total PAN in each of the Council’s secondary schools. It would apply to pupils who lived in single school catchment areas.
• An increase in the number of preferences that families can make from three to four.
14. The proposed oversubscription criteria were as follows:
1. Looked after children and all previously looked after children, including those children who appear (to the council) to have been in state care outside of England and ceased to be in state care as a result of being adopted.
2. Compelling medical or other exceptional reasons for attending the school.
3. A sibling link applied for those living within the designated catchment area only.
4. Children living within the designated catchment area and eligible for FSM up to the city average. (note d)
5. Other children eligible for FSM up to the city average.
6. Children living outside the school’s catchment area but within the catchment area for BACA, PACA, Patcham or Longhill up to 20%.
7. Pupils living in the designated catchment area for the school(s).
8. Other children.
15. Note D referred to against the fourth criterion read as follows:

“Children will be considered under this priority if they are eligible for FSM on the closing date for applications or on the date the application is submitted if it is late or outside the main admission round. The city average will be taken as 30%. The number of places available at each school under priority 4 will be calculated by applying the city average to the school’s PAN. The number of places available under priority 5 will be calculated by applying the city average to the school’s PAN and subtracting the number of places offered under priority 4.”

16. During the consultation period the Council published the proposals on its website. The Council ran an online survey and held public meetings. The Council produced an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA). Schools and neighbouring authorities were told of the consultation.
17. Following the first public meeting the Council provided summary documents and a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). These were available on the Council’s website and it arranged further public meetings. The FAQs include updated information. For example, the December Cabinet report had stated 125 children from the catchment area(s) of two schools might not gain a catchment place after the changes. Based on new information the Council amended this figure to 144 children. This updated figure was available from 11 January.
18. During the consultation the Council also provided extra information about how it would operate the oversubscription criteria which gives priority to pupils receiving FSM. It explained it would count the 30 percent limit from criterion 1 down to criterion 5.
19. Following the consultation Brighton’s Full Council considered the proposals on 27 February. A detailed report was available to councillors. This included the background to the proposals, details of the consultation exercise, the responses received, any updated data and the rationale behind it, a revised EIA, and some amendments to the proposals. These included the updated position about the oversubscription criteria for children receiving FSM, and a reduction in the Open Admissions criterion to five percent. The report said that “having considered all feedback received during the consultation the Council accepts that a figure of 20 might currently result in unreasonable levels of disruption…and is recommended that the open admission criteria should be reduced from 20% to 5% of places”.
20. Full Council approved the final proposals.

Assessment

21. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
22. In this case the Council was required to consult on the changes to its admission arrangements. The consultation needed to last for at least six weeks and run between 01 October and 31 January. The Council met this requirement and so there is no evidence of fault with the timescales.
23. The information the Council was required to include with the consultation included the proposed admission arrangements and the PANs of the schools concerned. Again, there is no evidence the Council did not comply with this requirement.
24. Part of Mr X’s complaint is the Council changed the information available during the consultation. This includes the number of children likely to be affected by one of the proposals from 125 to 144.
25. Any extra information the Council published in support of the proposals was for the Council to decide. It would of course be preferable for information in support of the proposals not to change. However, the fact the Council published updated information during the process does not represent fault on its part. We would be more likely to criticise the Council had it not included this information. I also note the councillors who eventually approved the arrangements had full access to the information published and any changes made.
26. Mr X has also said the arrangements were unclear and not properly explained. This includes the way the Council would operate the oversubscription criteria which give priority to pupils receiving FSM.
27. Whether the arrangements were unclear is a subjective matter - but it is not one I can agree with overall. I consider them to have been sufficiently detailed and understandable.
28. I note the Council provided extra information during the consultation process about how the FSM criteria would operate. This is an area which I do think the Council could have handled better. During the consultation the Council issued an FAQ which stated:

“The proposal is that for the September 2026 admission we will include the count of children who are eligible for FSMs under priorities 1-3, before we allocate places under priorities 4 and 5. This means that during priorities 4 or 5 if we reach the 30%, we will stop allocating from those priority groups (4 & 5) at that point.”

29. This is different to the original explanatory note, see paragraph 15, which suggested the 30% would only apply to criteria 4 and 5. This updated position was reflected in the proposed arrangements put to Full Council after the consultation:

“That Full Council agrees to make a change to the admissions priorities for community secondary schools, to provide that at any school the percentage of places for pupils eligible for FSM within the oversubscription priorities 1-5 should be set at 30% of the Published Admission Number (PAN).”

30. I note though the availability of places to FSM applicants remained at 30 percent. Again, all information about this point was available to Full Council which could question the process and consider if any changes should be made. The Council could also have chosen not to publish the FAQ during the consultation and to have simply asked Full Council to determine the arrangements around the updated position. So, any fault could not be said to have affected the outcome. It would have been the same, even if the Council had taken a different approach.
31. While I understand Mr X’s concerns, we will not start an investigation his complaint. Having reviewed the evidence available there is not enough evidence of fault in the process followed for us to question the eventual decision reached.
32. The Council consulted in line with the School Admissions Code. This only took place after an engagement exercise and approval by the Council’s Cabinet. The proposals put forward were detailed and the Council took the steps we would expect during the consultation process. There were various ways interested parties could contribute and question the proposals. All this information was available to Full Council as the eventual decision-makers. There is no evidence this information was not properly considered. An investigation is not therefore appropriate.
33. Now the Council has determined its arrangements there is no option to pause the process as Mr X requested. Any challenges about whether the determined admission arrangements are lawful can be put to the School’s Adjudicator.

Back to top

Final decision

34. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman