Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to agree to a deferred school entry. We are unlikely to find fault. And the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider her Data Protection Act complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council mishandled her request for her summer born child, Y, to start school a year later than normal. She says the Council has failed to respond to a request to disclose documents to her.

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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint; or
• we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.(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 Mrs X which included the Council’s replies to her complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X obtained a place at School Z for Y to start in reception. She then applied for Y’s entry to be deferred for a year. This would mean Y would have their primary school education in the year below their normal cohort. She did so because Y was born in August and she believed it is in Y’s interests to be in the year below.
6. The Council told Mrs X in September 2025 that it did not agree to her request. It said she had failed to show exceptional circumstances. Mrs X complained and said the Council had applied the wrong test. The Council agreed in November 2025 that its decision letter had set out the wrong test. It agreed to put Mrs X’s case to the next deferred entry applications’ panel.
7. The panel in December 2025 refused the application. It said it did not believe it was in Y’s best interests to be in the year below.
8. Mrs X believes this has been mis handled for four reasons:
1. She believes the Council has imposed a burden on parents to provide evidence and there is no requirement to do so.

The Governments statutory guidance says:

’Admission authorities can reasonably expect parents to provide information about why they think their child should be admitted out of their normal age group, to enable them to make a decision in the child’s best interests

We are therefore unlikely to find fault as Mrs X alleges.

2. She says the Council failed to address the impact on Y of potentially missing a year’s schooling. The Council’s decision letter specifically says it did consider this. We are therefore unlikely to find fault.
3. She believes the Council was wrong to advise her that if she wanted to apply for a place in another Council area she would need to ask that Council for deferred entry. The Council cannot bind another Council on this issue. We are unlikely to find fault.
4. Mrs X says the Council should not have relied on internal professional advice. The guidance says the Council may use a mix of professionals on the decision panels or to help make a decision. We are therefore unlikely to find fault in it doing so.
2. Mrs X also says she asked the Council to provide her with the documents it held on her case. This is called a Data Protection Act subject access request (SAR).
3. Mrs X can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about any Council refusal to comply with a SAR. Parliament set up the ICO to consider data protection disputes which includes SAR disputes. The ICO are better placed than us to consider a SAR dispute.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault and the ICO are better placed to consider her SAR complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman