Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the address used to determine Ms M’s application for a school place for her son because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Ms M complains following her unsuccessful application and appeal for a school place for her son. She complains the Council did not correctly apply its policy to determine which address to use when assessing her application.

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
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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

My assessment

5. Ms M and Mr F are separated and have 50:50 joint care of their son. They applied for a school close to Mr F’s home.
6. The Council did not accept their application from Mr F’s address and used Ms M’s address instead.
7. The Council was unable to offer a place at their preferred school. The school was oversubscribed and all the places were allocated to children living closer to the school.
8. Ms M and Mr F appealed the Council’s decision. They argued the Council was wrong to use Ms M’s address. If the Council had used Mr F’s address, their son would have been admitted to the school.
9. Their appeal was unsuccessful. Unhappy with the outcome, they complained to us.
10. We do not decide which address the Council should use to determine Ms M’s application, or whether the Council should offer her son a place at the school of her choice. We are not another appeal. We check the appeal was carried out properly and fairly. The evidence satisfies me it was.
11. The Council’s policy is clear. It says the Council will decide which address to use. This is normally the address where any Child Benefit is paid.
12. The application form completed by Ms M and Mr F gave Mr F’s name and address as the applicant but Ms M’s address as the address their son would be attending school from.
13. The Council decided to make further enquiries. Ms M and Mr F confirmed they had 50:50 care of their son and Ms M receives Child Benefit. They said he attends the gym three times a week with Mr F which they believe means he has the majority of the care.
14. The Council, and the appeal panel, considered the matter. They decided Ms M’s address was the main address for the purposes of Ms M and Mr F’s application.
15. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation by us.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman