Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his application for a school place. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained about the Council’s handling of his application for a school place for his son (Y). Mr X says the Council failed to properly manage school capacity meaning Y was refused a place in a local school. Mr X says the Council has failed to offer his child a suitable school and is unhappy with how the Council has handled a change of address.

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, 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We can 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. The below is not meant to show everything that has happened. It is only a summary.
7. Mr X’s child (Y) came to live with him in the Council’s area. Mr X applied for a year 3 place at his preferred school (School C). The address Mr X applied from is not in School C’s catchment area. Because School C was full, the Council refused Mr X’s application. It offered a place at the nearest alternative with spaces (School B).
8. Mr X appealed the decision not to offer Y a place at School C. Mr X explained he was currently home educating Y. He would be buying a property within School C’s catchment area. It would be Y’s long-term home. Mr X said School C’s “ethos, structure and curriculum” aligned with Y’s needs.
9. An independent panel considered Mr X’s appeal. The panel decided School C’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied to Mr X’s application. The panel decided admitting a further child would cause the school ‘prejudice’. The panel considered Mr X’s case and balanced it against the prejudice admitting a further child would cause School C. The panel decided Mr X’s case did not outweigh the school’s and refused his appeal.
10. Shortly after the appeal, Mr X contacted the Council to say he had completed the purchase of a property close to School C. Y’s mother would move to the property in December. Mr X wanted the Council to update Y’s oversubscription criterion for School C as he would be living in the catchment area. Mr X sent the Council a copy of a tenancy agreement between himself and Y’s mother. In response, the Council said Mr X had previously indicated he would be purchasing a property. The Council therefore asked for proof the new property was owned by Mr X or Y’s mother – such as an exchange of contracts.
11. Mr X complained to the Council about its decision not to accept the evidence he had submitted. In its response, the Council said its standard process was to ask for an exchange of contracts or an assured shorthold tenancy. The Council said Mr X had not sent proof he had bought the property. The tenancy agreement did not specify the term of the agreement and was therefore invalid as an assured shorthold tenancy. The Council did not consider it to meet the required standard of proof. Mr X had also sent photographs showing the new property was not currently habitable. The Council said this indicated it was not Y’s current family home. The Council could not therefore update Y’s address until it received further proof.

Assessment

12. We will not start an investigation into Mr X’s complaint. The reasons for this are below.
13. Mr X says the Council failed to properly manage school place capacity meaning his son was left without a suitable school place. Mr X says the Council has failed to expand capacity to meet demand from new housing developments.
14. Mr X submitted an in-year application for a school place. It is not unusual for schools to be full mid-year and that is not evidence of fault by a council. The Council could not offer Y a place at Mr X’s preferred school, and it instead offered a place at the nearest alternative. This is within the statutory walking distance of the address Mr X applied from. Mr X’s complaint about a lack of sufficient places is a broad one. But there is not enough evidence the Council has failed to properly provide school places within its area to warrant us investigating.
15. Parents whose application for a school place is refused also have a right of appeal. Mr X has used that right. We can consider how appeal panels have looked at a case, but Mr X has not raised any concerns about the appeals process. I do note though the panel did not uphold Mr X’s appeal. It did not find any concerns with how Mr X’s application had been handled – and that includes the school place offered. The panel did not consider it to be unreasonable or so far away that it could indicate a lack of sufficient places in the area.
16. Turning to Mr X’s concerns the Council has not updated Y’s address based on the information he has submitted, 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 someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
17. In this case, the Council has asked for further information so it can be sure it uses the correct address for Mr X’s application. The School Admissions Code allows admission authorities to ask for proof of address. The Council’s website refers to an exchange of contracts, or a tenancy agreement lasting more than six months as evidence of a move. The Council says Mr X has not provided documents which meet these requirements. If we were to investigate, it is unlikely that we would find fault with the Council’s actions. It is entitled to satisfy itself the address being used for a school place application is the correct one. I also note that School C is full and so a change of oversubscription criterion would not automatically result in a place being offered – simply a different oversubscription criterion being applied to Y. If Mr X provides the Council with the requested information, it can update his application. That is the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr 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