Summary: Miss X complained about the Hayfield Cross Church of England school’s refusal of her application for delayed entry to reception year for her summer born child, Y. She says the school failed to consider her preference and based its decision against guidance. We found the school at fault. It should apologise, make payment to remedy the injustice caused and re-consider Miss X’s request.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about Hayfield Cross Church of England School’s refusal of her application for delayed entry to reception year for her summer born child, Y. She says the school failed to consider her preference and based its decision against guidance.
2. Miss X confirms the whole process is very stressful and she has spent a lot of time in dealing with this issue.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. I have considered the information provided by Miss X and have discussed the complaint with her on the telephone. I have considered the information provided by the Hayfield Cross Church of England School in response to our initial enquiries and the relevant law and guidance.
6. Miss X and Hayfield Cross Church of England School had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

7. ‘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. Ordinarily, they would then start school in year one with their ‘chronological year group’.
8. 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.
9. Parents decide when their children start school. The admission authority decides whether they start in reception or year one.
10. The Government has issued guidance for admission authorities deciding which year group a child should be admitted to.
11. 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.

12. 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.”
13. 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.
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. In 2023, the Government updated its non-statutory guidance ‘Guidance on handling admission requests for summer born children’. This states:
17. The admission authority of each school must make a decision based on the circumstances of the case and in the child’s best interests. It should be rare for an authority to refuse a parent’s request.
18. An admission authority may not decide that a child should start school before compulsory school age - that is the parent’s decision.
19. The Government believes it is rarely in a child’s 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.
20. In reaching a decision it set out that 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 their normal year group and missing a year of their education as a consequence.
21. It says there do not need to be exceptional circumstances, and a child does not need to have a medical need or special educational need or disability (SEND) for it to be in their best interests to be admitted outside of their normal year group.

What happened

22. In November 2025 Miss X applied for Y to start at Hayfield Cross Church of England School in September 2027.
23. In November 2025 Hayfield Cross Church of England School responded to say that Y would be placed in year 1 if they were to start in September 2027.
24. In January 2026, Hayfield Cross Church of England School provided its stage one response to the complaint. It stated that children normally start in year one if they miss the reception year. It went on to say that if a parent wished for their child to start in reception rather than in year one, then it is the responsibility of the school’s admission authority to decide.
25. Hayfield Cross Church of England School stated it believed being young within the year does not inherently disadvantage a child. It stated that Y’s nursery had reported the child was ‘intelligent’ and ‘eager’.
26. Miss X responded to say the school had failed to explain precisely why it was in her child’s best interest to miss the reception year of school.
27. In February 2026 Hayfield Cross Church of England School issued its stage two response to the complaint. A panel hearing took place and stated that ‘deferring Y’s start until September 2027 and placing them directly into Year 1 would not be in Y’s best interests. This is because they would miss the reception year’.
28. The School were satisfied that a request for reception placement out of year in September 2027 would be considered if supported by appropriate professional evidence. This included a Educational Psychologist assessment or medical report; however, no such evidence was provided, and the nursery describes Y as an intelligent child.’
29. In its response to the Ombudsman, Hayfield Cross Church of England School states that Miss X originally contacted North Northamptonshire Council to request Y’s entry to be delayed until September 2027. The Council passed this request on to the school which responded to Miss X. It states that because initially no application was made, it responded to the request through its complaint’s procedure.
30. Later Miss X applied through the standard admission round and Y did not gain a place at the school. It states it is satisfied the decision was made properly, following due process and with consideration of the child’s best interests.

Analysis

31. Parents of summer born children can ask for their child to start school at age five in reception. If a parent makes that decision, the school as the deciding authority must decide whether, after reaching compulsory school age, it would be in the child’s best interests to start in reception or year one. When reaching this decision, it must take account of all relevant considerations. It must consider the potential impact on the child of being admitted into year one without first completing reception and the guidance highlights it would rarely be in a child’s interests to miss a year of education.
32. Hayfield Cross Church of England School has highlighted in its panel findings that it would not be in Y’s best interest to miss the reception year of school. It goes on to say that it might have recommended Y starts in reception, if Miss X had provided evidence of Special Educational needs from an Educational Psychologist (EP).
33. However, the School’s response is contradictory in that it both suggests that it is in Y’s best interest not to miss reception year but at the same time decides that they should. It reads the School is disagreeing with Miss Y’s decision to defer her child start at school. However, the Government’s 2023 guidance makes it clear that this is Miss Y’s decision and not the schools.
34. It is Hayfield Cross Church of England School’s role to decide what year the child should start when they begin school. When reaching its view, it has referred to the need of having an EP report and that a child ‘normally starts in year one’. However, the guidance makes it clear that this is not a requirement. Also the School is potentially fettering its own decision-making process, as each case should be judged upon its own merits. Again, I consider this to be fault by the school.
35. In reaching its view Hayfield Cross Church of England School’s panel response was generic in its explanations. It failed to answer the points raised by Miss X or explain how it believed it was in Y’s best interest to miss reception year. The only personal evidence it referred to Y was a statement by the nursery that Y was ‘eager and ‘intelligent’. I consider this to be fault and added to the frustration and distress felt by Miss X.
36. I therefore find Hayfield Cross Church of England School should reconsider its decision for Y not to be admitted in reception year for the start of the academic year of 2027. I note the school has stated that Y would not be admitted as part of an additional application, however it has not provided any details regarding this. There is also a significant amount of time before the start of the academic year in 2027. The school should provide additional appeal rights to Miss X for any subsequent application she makes, and Miss X also has the right to escalate this to the Ombudsman at the time if required.
37. Also, I find Hayfield Cross Church of England School should provide a time and trouble award to recognise the injustice caused by its fault and the distress this caused Miss X.

Back to top

Action

38. Within four weeks of my final decision, Hayfield Cross Church of England School has agreed to:
1. Provide a written apology to Miss X for the unnecessary and avoidable distress caused by the failure to consider correctly the application for delayed entry into reception year.
2. Pay Miss X £100 for the time and trouble caused in pursuing a response to her complaint.
3. Re-consider Miss X’s request for Y to be admitted out of their normal age group to reception. The school should consider whether it would be in Y’s best interests to start in reception or year one in September 2027, in line with the Code and guidance. If the School does not agree to Miss X’s request, it should clearly explain why it considers it is in Y’s interests to miss reception and provide appeal rights into this.
39. The School should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

40. I find fault causing injustice. The School should apologise, make payment and reconsider its decision to remedy the injustice experienced.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman