Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a school admissions application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of a school admissions application for her child. She says the Council wrongly accepted an application from her child’s father (Mr Y), which she believes breached a Child Arrangements Order and the Council’s School Admissions Policy. She is unhappy with how the Council handled her complaint about Mr Y’s application.
2. Ms X is also unhappy the Council did not include her in a related complaint Mr Y made and did not respond to her request for information.
3. Ms X says the situation has caused her distress, undermined her parental responsibility and created uncertainty about her child’s school placement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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,
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained,
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement,
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation,
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome,
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants,
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, 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

5. I considered information provided by Ms X.
6. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X says the Council should not have accepted Mr Y’s school admissions application because she did not consent to it and had already submitted a separate application to another council with their agreed school preferences. She believes the Council’s actions breached the Child Arrangements Order and the Council’s School Admissions Policy.
8. Under the Children Act 1989, any parent with parental responsibility can make decisions about their child’s education. Councils must treat all parents equally unless a court order limits a parent’s ability to do so.
9. The Child Arrangements Order gives both parents joint and equal parental responsibility. It does not restrict the father’s ability to decide about education. The Council’s School Admissions Policy says that where more than one parent submits an application for a child, the Council legally must comply with the expressed preferences. If preferences are not the same, then parents will have to seek resolution and if necessary, through legal means.
10. I am satisfied Mr Y was entitled to make an independent application, and it was open for the Council to accept and progress the application. The Council has explained to Ms X why it accepted the application and responded to her concerns throughout the application process. I do not consider there is enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating. I also do not consider the Council’s actions have caused significant injustice to Ms X. The Council accepting Mr Y’s application does not appear to have affected Ms X’s separate application and she had the option to decline any school offer the Council made.
11. If Ms X had any concerns Mr Y’s application breached the Child Arrangements Order then those concerns would be better addressed in Court. It is not the Council’s role to mediate disputes between parents.

Council’s complaint handling

12. Ms X is unhappy the same officer handled both her complaint and a complaint Mr Y made. She says this was a conflict of interest and undermined impartiality.
13. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint handling, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issues. As I am not investigating the substantive complaint about Mr Y’s school admissions application, then I will not investigate the Council’s handling of Ms X’s complaint.

Failure to include Ms X in Mr Y’s complaint

14. Ms X complains the Council did not involve her in a complaint Mr Y made, which related to their shared parental responsibility.
15. Mr Y’s complaint was a matter between him and the Council. We cannot investigate how the Council handled that complaint because we do not have Mr Y’s consent. It is not Ms X’s complaint, and she is not directly affected by the issue.
16. In any case, this issue does not affect our view about the Council’s handling of the school admissions application, which we have already addressed above.
17. Refusal of request for information
18. Ms X also complains about the Council’s refusal of her subject access request for information about Mr Y’s application.
19. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about access to information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about access to information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner. Therefore, I will not investigate this aspect of Ms X’s complaint as the Information Commissioner is better placed to address this concern.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council accepting Mr Y’s school admissions application because there is not enough evidence of fault and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. We will not investigate other aspects of Ms X’s complaint for the reasons outlined above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman