Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her application for a school place. Any issues Miss X wants to raise about the way the Council dealt with her application are best considered under the appeals process. The Council offered an alternative place as it was required to do and there is not enough evidence of fault in its decision not to place Miss X’s child using its Fair Access Protocol.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, complained about the Council’s handling of her application for a school place for her child (Y). Miss X says the Council wrongly discouraged her from applying to one of her preferred schools and failed to deal with fraudulent applications. Miss X says the Council offered an unsuitable school leaving Y without a safe placement. Miss X is unhappy the Council has not placed Y in a school using its Fair Access Protocol. Miss X wants the Council to offer Y a place at her preferred school.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way a school admissions appeals panel made its decision. If there was no fault in how the panel made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. If we find fault, which calls into question the panel’s decision, we may ask for a new appeal hearing. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. But we cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as school academies, or school admission appeal panels which consider appeals for academies. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. Miss X applied for Y to start secondary school in September 2025. All of Miss X’s preferred schools were oversubscribed. The Council did not offer Y a place at any of Miss X’s preferences. It therefore offered a place at the nearest alternative with places. Miss X added School Z to her list of preferences. This is the school Miss X says the Council provided misleading information about and so she did not originally apply. This is the school Miss X would like Y to attend. Miss X declined the place the Council had offered.
9. In its response to Miss X’s complaints the Council directed her to the appeals process as provided in law and set out in the School Admission Appeals Code. Miss X has exercised this right for at least some of her preferences. The Council said that it had offered Y a school place and it was not required to continue making alternative offers. It said Miss X had chosen to home educate Y. It would not place Y under its Fair Access Protocol as this was for in-year applicants who had not been able to secure a place under the normal admissions process. This did not apply to Y. The Council provided Miss X with a list of other schools with places.

Assessment

10. We will not start an investigation into Miss X’s complaint for the reasons below:
• I have seen no evidence the Council provided misleading information about School Z which meant Miss X did not originally apply for a place. Even if she had included School Z in her original application, the Council would not have offered Y a place. So even if there was fault in the advice given, it did not cause Miss X any injustice.
• When an admission authority refuses an application for a place, parents have a right of appeal. We expect parents to use that right as it is the mechanism established by Parliament for parent to challenge such decisions. Appeal panels need to consider how applications were dealt with and can offer a child a place – the Ombudsman cannot. We will not therefore consider the handling of Miss X’s applications for specific schools, including the allegation of fraudulent applications, because in the first instance these are matters for an appeal panel to consider. Miss X has used her right of appeal for at least some of her preferences. Those appeals were not part of her complaint to the Ombudsman. We can consider complaints about appeals to schools which are not academies, but they would need to be raised with the Ombudsman as separate complaints.
• Councils have a duty to ensure there are sufficient school places in their area and to offer a place to the children of parents who apply. The Council did this, and while Miss X does not consider the place suitable, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council for us to become involved.
• Fair Access Protocols exist to ensure that unplaced children, outside of the normal admissions round, are allocated a school place as quickly as possible. Miss X applied for a school place as part of the normal admissions round and the Council offered Y a place. We would not therefore criticise the Council for failing to use its Fair Access Protocol to place Y.
11. Further consideration of Miss X’s complaint by the Ombudsman is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. Some matters are for the independent appeal process and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman