Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions relating to a school admissions application for his son. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the handling of the original application and Mr X has appealed. The Council has explained why it does not think its Fair Access Protocol or alternative education duty apply to Mr X’s situation. We would be unlikely to find fault if we investigated these points. We cannot consider the actions of schools and some of Mr X’s complaint had not completed the Council’s complaints process when he complained to the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complained about the Council’s actions relating to a school admissions application for his son (Y). Mr X is unhappy his preferred school did not offer Y a place. Mr X says his son has been left without a school place. Mr X is unhappy the Council will not use its Fair Access Protocol (FAP) to place Y in his preferred school. Mr X says the Council has failed to provide suitable alternative education and he is unhappy with how his complaint has been handled. Mr X has also referred to inappropriate safeguarding visits and delay in the Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) process for his son.

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 cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. School admission appeal panels are tribunals.
5. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. It also handles appeals against schools or local authorities for discriminating based on a child or young person’s disability. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.
6. 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

7. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
8. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)
9. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
11. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

12. The below is a summary. It is no meant to show everything that has happened.
13. Mr X applied for Y to start year 7 at his preferred school (School B) in September 2025. School B is a voluntary aided school and so the governing body is the admission authority. It has responsibility for deciding the school’s admission arrangements which determine the children it will offer places.
14. School B was oversubscribed and did not offer Y a place. The Council offered Y a place at an alternative school (School C). Mr X does not consider School C to be suitable and contends School B is the only suitable school for Y. This is linked to Y’s Emotionally Based School Avoidance (EBSA).
15. Parents whose application for a school place is refused have a right of appeal to an independent appeal panel. These panels are statutory tribunals and have the power to order an admission authority to offer a place. In his complaint to the Ombudsman Mr X said "an appeal was lodged directly with [School B] and this is now being progressed via a SENDIST tribunal." Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman did not raise concerns about the handling of his appeal.
16. Mr X submitted fresh applications to the Council for year 7 places at alternative schools. These were unsuccessful and the Council said the place at School C remained available.
17. Because Mr X considered the place at School C to be unsuitable, he told the Council he wanted to decline the offer. Mr X said because Y was without a school place for September 2025, the Council should use its FAP to allocate him a place. Mr X said the Council had a duty under Section 19 of the Education Act to provide Y with alternative education if it did not offer Y a place at a suitable school.
18. Mr X has asked the Council to assess his child for an EHC Plan. The Council originally refused but changed its decision after mediation. This process was ongoing when Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.
19. In response to complaints from Mr X the Council said:
• Mr X’s application for a place at School B was unsuccessful and there is a mechanism for resolving such cases. This is the right of appeal I refer to in paragraph 15.
• FAPs are designed to support hard-to-place children outside the normal admissions round. Mr X’s application for Y was made as part of the normal applications process. A place was offered at School C and remains valid even though Mr X has not accepted the place. The Council did not therefore consider Y unplaced and the FAP did not apply.
• The Council’s duty to provide Section 19 education applied when a child cannot attend school due to illness, exclusion or otherwise. The Council’s view was there was no reason Y could not attend School C and so the Section 19 duty did not apply.
• Mr X had said the Council had failed to acknowledge Y’s Special Educational Needs (SEN) and his request for an EHC Plan. The Council said Y’s application was considered in line with School B’s oversubscription criteria. All schools, including School C, are required to make reasonable adjustments and provide appropriate support to children with SEN.
20. The Council referred Mr X to the Ombudsman.

Assessment

21. We will not start an investigation into Mr X’s complaint. The reasons for this are below.
22. The initial decision to refuse Mr X’s application for a place at School B was taken by the school as the admission authority – not the Council. It is a decision parents can challenge via the appeals process. Mr X says he has used his right of appeal. Mr X has not raised concerns about the appeals process, but he could do so as a fresh complaint to the Ombudsman. However, Mr X’s appeal to the SEND Tribunal may affect our jurisdiction to consider a complaint. I have not seen any evidence of fault by the Council in the handling of the original application, but that is a matter for an appeal panel to consider.
23. When Mr X’s application for a place at School B was unsuccessful, the Council offered an alternative place. That is what the Council should have done. Mr X contends School C is unsuitable – the Council does not. That is a decision the Council is entitled to take. There is not enough evidence of fault here for us to become involved. Again, this issue is something an appeal panel can consider.
24. Mr X says the Council should use its FAP to place Y in his preferred school. The School Admissions Code sets out the law relating to school admissions and FAPs. It states FAPs are to ensure “unplaced and vulnerable children, and those who are having difficulty securing a school place in-year, are allocated a school place as quickly as possible.” The Code goes on to explain in-year applications are for the admission of children into a relevant age group, submitted on or after the first day of term. Relevant age groups are the normal year of admission – such as year 7 in most secondary schools.
25. The Council’s view is the FAP does not apply as the application for Y is not an in-year admission and they were also not unplaced – because the Council had offered a place at School C and it remained available. Based on the evidence available, Mr X’s application was not an in-year one – it was made as part of the normal admissions round. It therefore follows the FAP should not apply. While I know Mr X is unhappy with the offer of School C, a parent viewing a place as unsuitable does not mean a child is 'unplaced’. If it did, parents could effectively force FAPs to be invoked. There is not enough evidence of fault here for us to become involved.
26. Linked to the above is Mr X’s complaint the Council has not provided alternative education. Parents have a duty to ensure their children receive a suitable full-time education. If a parent considers the school offered by a council to be unsuitable, that does not automatically trigger a Section 19 duty. The Council’s view is a suitable place has been offered and is available. That is a decision for the Council to take, and without evidence of fault in that decision, it follows there is no Section 19 duty.
27. Mr X says there have been unnecessary safeguarding visits. I have not seen these as part of a complaint to the Council. We would expect that to happen before we take a view. However, if they have been arranged by School C due to Y being on roll, then we would have no powers to consider this point. This is because the actions of schools are largely outside our jurisdiction.
28. Mr X has also raised concerns about how long the EHC Plan process is taking. This needs to be put to the Council and can be raised with us as a fresh complaint. But we will not consider it here.

Back to top

Final decision

29. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, Mr X has used his rights of appeal, we cannot consider complaints about schools, and the Council’s complaints process has not been exhausted for certain matters.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman