Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s application for a school place. An investigation would not achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, complained about the Council’s handling of her application for a school place. Miss X says the Council failed to properly deal with her application leaving her son (Y) out of education.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. I have provided below a brief chronology. It is not meant to show everything.
6. Miss X withdrew Y from his previous school in October 2024 due to problems with the school. Miss X decided to Electively Home Educate Y. Miss X submitted applications and appeals for two schools. On 02 December Miss X told the Council Y was no longer being Electively Home Educated and was therefore out of education. The Council made a referral to its Children Missing Education Team and asked Y’s previous school to re-admit him. This school is an academy. On 21 and 27 January Y was offered places at both of Miss X’s preferred schools. Y started at the first of these schools on 10 February.
7. The issue at the heart of this case is the Council’s failure to secure a school place for Miss X’s son and the eventual time taken. While I recognise Miss X’s concerns, we will not start an investigation into her complaint.
8. The first reason for this decision is that Y now has a place at Miss X’s preferred school. If we investigated, we could not achieve anything more. We only have limited resources and need to focus on those cases where an investigation could potentially achieve a worthwhile outcome.
9. We also will not investigate because the time from when Miss X confirmed Y was out of education and when a place was eventually offered is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. We cannot consider the actions of any of the schools involved as the law prevents us from doing so. We would be unlikely to recommend a remedy for any delay we could hold the Council responsible for. So, like above, an investigation would not achieve a different or worthwhile outcome and is not therefore warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because further consideration of the case would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman