Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to properly consider Mrs X’s request for a school admission outside of chronological age group for her two summer born children in line with the relevant law and guidance. This caused Mrs X distress, frustration and uncertainty about her children’s education. The Council has agreed to apologise and review its decision.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly consider Mrs X’s request for admission outside of chronological age group for her summer born children in line with the relevant law and guidance. This caused Mrs X distress, frustration and uncertainty about her children’s education.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

6. ‘Summer born children’ are children born between 1 April and 31 August. These children are not required to start school until the September following their fifth birthday.
7. Parents can request their summer born children are admitted to a reception class in the September following their fifth birthday rather than year one. This means they are educated outside their normal age group.
8. Parents decide when their children start school. The admission authority decides whether they start in reception or year one.
9. The Government has issued guidance (The school admissions code 2021) for admission authorities deciding which year group a child should be admitted to.
10. The school admissions code 2021 says the admission authority must:

• make decisions in the best interests of the child; and
• take account of the child’s individual needs and abilities and consider whether these can best be met in reception or year one; and
• take account of the potential impact on the child of being admitted to year one without first having completed the reception year.

11. The guidance says, “In effect, this means that the authority is making a decision about whether it would be in the child’s best interest to miss the reception year.”
12. The guidance says it is reasonable to expect parents to provide information to support their request, but they are not expected to obtain professional evidence they do not already have.
13. Factors an admission authority will need to consider include:
• parents’ views
• information about a child’s academic, social, and emotional development
• where relevant, a child’s medical history and the views of a medical professional
• whether a child would naturally have fallen into a lower age group if they had not been born prematurely
• the potential impact on a child of being admitted to their normal age group and missing a year of their education as a consequence
• the views of the Headteacher of the school concerned.
14. Admission authorities must set out clearly the process for requesting admission outside the normal year group, including what information and evidence parents should provide and when. There is no prescribed process admission authorities must follow, although the guidance notes some authorities use decision making panels to consider requests, and some invite parents to attend panel meetings.
15. The admission authority must, however, give reasons for its decision.
16. The Department for Education guidance on handling admission requests for summer-born children says, the government believes it is rarely in a child’s best interests to miss a year of their education, for example, by beginning primary school in year 1 rather than reception, or secondary school in year 8 rather than year 7.

What happened

17. Mrs X has two summer born children. In January 2025, she contacted the Council as it was the school admissions authority for school A and B. She said she was delaying sending them to school until September 2026. At this point, they will be at compulsory school age.
18. Mrs X wanted her children to start in a reception class in September 2026 rather than year one with their chronological age group. She provided documentation and research to support this.
19. The Council contacted school A and school B in February 2025 to explain Mrs X would like to apply for a reception school place in September 2026 where chronologically the children should be in year one. The Council asked the Headteachers of the two schools for their professional view on this request.
20. The Headteacher for school A said the children should enter school at the correct chronological age. They said whilst there are concerns regarding summer born children’s readiness for school, reception is tailored to support children with these changes. This implied the children should start in reception in September 2025.
21. The Headteacher for school B said if Mrs X applied and was successful in getting a school place for September 2026, the children could start in reception outside of their chronological age group.
22. The Council issued an outcome letter to Mrs X in May 2025. The Council said it was in the children’s best interest to start in reception alongside their peers in September 2025. The Council said this was because future schools may not honour the decision for them to be placed outside their chronological age group. This would lead to the children potentially having to skip a school year later.
23. The following month Mrs X made a complaint that the Council had not considered whether it was in the best interest for the children to start in reception or year one in September 2026. Instead, the Council encouraged Mrs X to enrol the children in reception with their chronological age group.
24. In August 2025, the Council issued a stage two complaint response. The Council said its published admission arrangements says it will only admit children outside of their chronological year group in exceptional circumstances. It also said it was in the children’s best interest for them to start in year one in September 2026 for the following reasons:
• Secondary schools may not continue an out of year placement, potentially resulting in missed education;
• Children are not of compulsory school age from the last Friday in June of the school year in which they turn 16. For those educated outside their chronological year group, this may mean leaving school before completing year 11; and
• Evidence indicates that delayed entry does not significantly improve long-term academic outcomes.
25. Mrs X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of the matter and complained to us.

My findings

26. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not for us to decide in which school year the children should start. Our role is to consider the processes followed by the Council in reaching its decision. If we find it followed the processes correctly, we cannot question the decision.
27. When Mrs X decided that her children would not be starting school until September 2026 when they were at compulsory school age, the Council should have considered whether it was in the children’s best interest to start in reception or year one in 2026. The Council failed to do this as in the outcome letter it said it was in the best interest of the children to start in reception in 2025. It was not for the Council or school A to comment on this.
28. In the stage two complaint response, the Council said it was in the best interest for the children to start in year one in September 2026 rather than reception because secondary schools may not continue an out of year placement. However, it has failed to consider the potential impact on the children of being admitted to year one without first having completed the reception year.
29. It also said it would only allow out of year placements in exceptional circumstances. However, this contradicts the Department for Education guidance which states the government believes it is rarely in a child’s best interests to miss a year of their education, for example, by beginning primary school in year 1 rather than reception.
30. The Council failed to properly consider Mrs X’s request for admission outside of chronological age group which was fault. This has caused Mrs X distress, frustration and uncertainty about her children’s education.

Back to top

Action

31. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mrs X for the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the Council’s failure to properly consider her request.
2. Carry out a review of its decision in line with the relevant law and guidance. It should consider Mrs X’s request and consider whether it is in the children’s best interest to start in reception or year one in September 2026 taking into account the bullet points set out in paragraph 10 and 13.
3. Review its admissions policy to ensure that in the future, requests for admission outside of chronological age group are considered in line with the relevant law and guidance.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

33. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman