Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an application for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, complained about the Council’s handling of an application for a school place for her son (Y). Miss X says the Council failed to update her address meaning Y missed out on a place at her preferred school. Miss X is also unhappy the Council has not given Y priority under its medical / social criterion.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (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

What I found

Chronology

5. On 16 April 2025 Miss X submitted a late application for Y to start reception at her preferred school (School Z). Because School Z had already offered all its places, the Council refused Miss X’s application. The Council offered Y a place at the nearest school with spaces. It made this offer on 08 May as part of the first round of re-offers.
6. Miss X told the Council on 19 May she was looking to move closer to School Z and had started “an apartment search with the definitive intention to relocate.” Miss X told the Council on 07 June she had made a security deposit and received an “Acceptance for Tenancy Agreement”. On 24 and 30 June Miss X sent further evidence of the move, including a letter showing references had been completed.
7. The Council’s fourth re-offer round took place on 26 June. For the Council to consider a change of address as part of the re-offer round, parents needed to have provided proof of their move by 12 June. Because Miss X had not provided proof of her move by this date, the Council again considered her application from her old address. The Council made two re-offers at School Z, but this did not include a place for Y.
8. Based on the information Miss X had sent on 24 and 30 June, the Council updated her address on 01 July. This moved Y to the top of School Z’s waiting list. There was a further round of re-offers on 16 July, but this did not include any places at School Z.

Assessment

9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
10. The issue at the heart of this complaint is the Council’s handling of Miss X’s change of address. Miss X contends the Council knew of her situation from when she first applied for a place, and that on 19 May, she confirmed she was looking to move closer to School Z. Miss X says the Council should have updated her address based on the information she sent on 24 June, so Y received a re-offer on 26 June.
11. The Council’s policy is clear that it will only update a person’s address for admissions purposes when it receives appropriate proof. The Council received this on 24 and 30 June – after the required date of 12 June for the change of address to be used in the re-offers made on 26 June. While Miss X had provided some information earlier on in the process, it was not enough for the Council to update her address. While I understand Miss X is disappointed, the Council acted in line with its published policy. It correctly re-offered places and there are no grounds for us to say the Council was at fault. As soon as the Council received appropriate proof of Miss X’s address change, it updated her record which moved Y to the top of School Z’s waiting list.
12. Miss X is also unhappy the Council has not assigned Y social / medical priority based on the information she sent. The Council has explained why it does not consider this to apply. Once again, while Miss X is disappointed, I do not see enough evidence of fault for us to be able to question the Council’s decision. I also note there have been no re-offers since Miss X sent the evidence in support of her request. So even if the Council had agreed to her request, Y would still have not been offered a place.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman