Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s application for a school place. This is because it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response and an investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained about the Council’s handling of his application for a school place for his child (Y). Mr X says the Council discriminated against him by prioritising an application from Y’s mother. Mr X says communication from the Council has been poor. Mr X wants to be treated equally and to be paid compensation.

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 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

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. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council said it received an application from Mr X but also Y’s mother. Because the two applications contained slightly different spellings, the Council did not realise thy were for the same child until January 2025. Where there is a dispute between parents the Council will only accept a single application and will not become involved in disputes. The Council said in this case the two applications were very similar, so it merged them. The Council said it should have told Mr X about this, and it also accepted it failed to send Mr X details of the school offered to Y until he made contact. The Council apologised for this, set out some service improvements, and explained the merging of the applications had not affected the outcome. Mr X now knows the school offered to his child and can appeal if unhappy with the outcome.
6. While I understand Mr X’s frustrations, we will not start an investigation into his complaint. The Council has accepted there was some fault and that its communications with Mr X could have been better. But if we were to investigate it is unlikely we would say the injustice to Mr X was significant enough to warrant any further recommendations or remedies. The Council has explained what happened and there is not enough evidence its actions could be considered discrimination. An investigation would not therefore add anything to the Council’s response or achieve a different outcome for Mr X. Our further involvement is not therefore warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response or achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman