Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the arrangements made for her daughter to sit the Kent Test for entry to grammar schools. An investigation would not achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the arrangements made for her daughter, C, to sit the Kent Test. She says it did not allow reasonable adjustments, follow available guidance or allow for a second review. Mrs X says the arrangements made disadvantaged her daughter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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:

• 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. C has a disability which means she needed reasonable adjustments to sit the Kent Test. Mrs X contacted the Council to seek adjustments, it responded telling her it could offer C a review by a Head Teacher’s Assessment Panel as a reasonable adjustment.
7. Mrs X complained C had been treated differently to everyone else sitting the test and denied the same opportunities including the ability to have a review after the test.
8. In May 2025 the Council wrote to Mrs X about C’s Kent Test. It explained that it had investigated further and remained satisfied that C could not take the test because the test provider could not provide the minimum adjustments she would need. It did, though, accept that C’s panel had not conformed with available guidance and therefore offered to arrange a new panel for C.
9. The Council also recognised its process did not treat people with disabilities, which affects them taking the test, fairly. It therefore stated it would be reviewing its process to ensure this was prevented from reoccurring.
10. The Council’s actions mean C has been given a further opportunity to pass the Kent Test, and it has agreed to make service improvements. If we were to investigate this complaint it would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because further consideration would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman