Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s in-year admissions process. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to reach a finding of fault. If Mr X believes the Council’s admission arrangements are unlawful it is a matter for the Office of the Schools Adjudicator. Mr X’s claim the Council’s actions have led to him suffering a financial loss is best considered by the courts.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained about the Council’s in-year admissions process. Mr X says the Council’s process which requires applications within four school weeks of a place being required does not comply with the School Admissions Code. Mr X says the Council treated his application illegally leading to financial losses of over £17k. Mr X wants the Council’s processes changing and his losses reimbursing.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

3. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. Mr X’s child (Y) attends an independent, fee-paying school. This requires parents to give a term’s notice if their child is to leave the school.
9. On 30 July 2024, Mr X made an in-year application to the Council for a school place for Y at his preferred school (School Z). Mr X said he wanted the place for January 2025. This would allow him to give a term’s notice at Y’s school.
10. The Council told Mr X parents could apply for a place up to four school weeks before it was needed. Places then had to be taken up in a reasonable time – usually four calendar weeks. Because Mr X’s application was outside this window it told him to reapply closer to when he needed the place. It did not therefore process Mr X’s application.
11. Mr X applied again on 19 December. The Council requested proof of his address which he supplied on 02 January 2025. On 03 January, the Council refused Mr X’s application as School Z was full. The Council suggested Y remain at her current school, but if this was not an option, he should contact the Council. It also advised Mr X of his rights to appeal the decision not to offer a place at School Z.
12. The Council offered a place at an alternative school on 14 January. Mr X declined this offer on 30 January. The Council offered a place at School Z on 05 February. Mr X could not take the place up within the required four weeks as he had committed to a further term at Y’s current school and paid the fees. Mr X therefore declined the offer on 19 February.

Mr X’s complaint

13. Mr X’s complaint flows from the Council’s requirement that in-year applicants should apply for a place within four weeks of it being required, and that a place offered should then be taken up within four calendar weeks. Mr X says these arrangements do not work for parents with children at independent schools which require a term’s notice.
14. Mr X has referred to paragraph 2.23 of the School Admissions Code (the Code) which states “a parent can apply for a place for their child at any school, at any time.” He has also referred to paragraph 2.30 which states “Parents must not be refused the opportunity to make an application or be told that they can only be placed on a waiting list rather than make a formal application.” Mr X says the Council failed to comply with the Code when it rejected his application in July 2024. Mr X also says the Council denied him a right of appeal.
15. Mr X also says the Council’s position that when a place is offered it must be taken up within four weeks does not comply with the Code. Mr X has referred to paragraph 2.31 which states “Where an applicant is offered a school place following an in-year application, and the offer is accepted, arrangements should be made for the child to start school as soon as possible,” Mr X says by specifying a deadline the Council is in breach of the Code.
16. Mr X says the Council should consider the exceptional circumstances of the Government introducing VAT on private school fees in the middle of the year. Mr X says the Council is not treating children in the independent school sector fairly.

The Council’s response

17. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council set out a chronology of events which I will not repeat.
18. The Council’s view was that an in-year application was for when a parent needed a school place. This is why the Council required applications within four weeks of when the place was required. The Council publishes this information on its website. The Council’s view was that it was reasonable not to accept an application if a parent did not require the place within its published four-week timescale. This is why the Council had rejected Mr X’s application in July 2024.
19. The Council referred to the part of the Code which states parents can apply for a place at any time. The Council also referred to the part of the Code which states once a parent has accepted a place that schools must make arrangements for the child to start as soon as possible.
20. The Council’s view was that when these points were taken together, the Code meant parents could apply for a place when they needed one, rather than in advance for a school place needed on a future date. The Council said it was also therefore reasonable places were taken up within four calendar weeks.
21. The Council also referred to an exception in the Code for service personnel and crown servants, who could apply for a place in advance of needing one. The Council said if the Code meant for all parents to be able to apply in advance, there would be no need for this provision.
22. The Council said it would not reimburse Mr X’s tuition fees as it had processed his applications in line with its published policy. The Council also said that even if had offered Y a place in August 2024, the outcome would have been the same. This was because Mr X had said the place was not required until January 2025. The Council would therefore have withdrawn any place offered as it would not have been taken up within a reasonable period.

Assessment

23. In this case Mr X argues the Council’s in-year admissions process is in breach of the Code and that its arrangements are therefore unlawful. Mr X argues the Council’s actions have caused him material losses.
24. The Council’s position is to only accept in-year applications within four weeks of parents requiring a school place. It also expects parents to take up a place within four calendar weeks. The Council has explained to Mr X the rationale for its position. Mr X disagrees with this and has cited sections of the Code in his complaints. The Council has done the same in its responses.
25. 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 disagree with the decision the organisation made.
26. Having considered all the evidence available there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant the Ombudsman investigating. From the evidence I have seen the Council has followed its published process for in-year admissions. Sections of the Code support Mr X’s position, while others support the Council’s. But I do not consider there to be enough evidence on which we could rely to say the Council has acted with fault. An investigation is not therefore appropriate.
27. I also note the Council’s point that even if it had processed Mr X’s July application and offered a place, the eventual outcome would have effectively been the same. This is because Mr X did not want a school place until January. So, even if the Council had offered a place at Mr X’s preferred school (or another school) it would then have withdrawn the offer when not taken up in four weeks. The Code does not provide a right of appeal in such circumstances. Mr X would therefore have found himself in the same situation. Given that Mr X rejected two offers in January, including one at his preferred school because of the timing of the offer, I understand the point the Council is making. So, even if there was fault by the Council in not processing the July application, we cannot say it caused an injustice to Mr X.
28. I see no issue with the Council’s processing of Mr X’s second application. Further consideration is not therefore appropriate.
29. The role of the Ombudsman is to look for administrative fault, not to decide if something is lawful or not. If Mr X believes the in-year admission arrangements for any school are unlawful, then it is a matter for the Officer of the Schools Adjudicator (OSA). It has the powers to decide if admission arrangements are unlawful and to order them to be changed. This is not something we can do. The OSA is therefore best placed to consider the legality of in-year admission arrangements.
30. Mr X also argues the Council’s actions have caused him financial losses. Mr X effectively argues the Council has acted negligently. We cannot decide if an organisation has been negligent and have no powers to enforce awards of damages. It is therefore reasonable for Mr X to seek his claimed losses in court. I note Mr X has already issued the Council with a Pre Action Protocol letter.

Back to top

Final decision

31. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions. The OSA is best placed to decide if a school’s admission arrangements are lawful. It is reasonable for Mr X to pursue his claimed losses in court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman