Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s co-ordination of the school admission process. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council failed to consult him about re-ordering his school preferences when he moved from another area that allowed six school choices. He said it should not have automatically deleted the fifth and sixth choices

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.

(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. Mr X moved to Kent from a neighbouring area that allows parents to name up to six school preferences. In Kent, the Council allows parents a maximum of four preferences. There is a deadline for parents to change preferences. Mr X applied for schools in Kent before he moved. The Council considered his top four preferences after the deadline. It has no duty to offer parents further opportunities to change their preferences after the deadline has passed.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evince of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman