Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school admissions. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has allocated his child a school that is too far from home. He also says the school is too far from the school allocated to his other child.
2. Mr X says that, because his wife does not drive, managing travel to both schools is not feasible while he maintains his employment.
3. He would like both children to be allocated places at the same local school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X says the appeal panel may not have properly considered his circumstances.
9. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
10. I reviewed the appeal panel’s notes. I am satisfied the appeal panel properly considered Mr X’s case, including his grounds for appealing, and applied the admissions policy correctly. It gave clear reasons for refusing admission. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
11. The Council advised Mr X to submit an appeal for the next academic year, which could have been heard in late July. This provides a remedy equivalent to the one the Ombudsman would recommend if fault had been found. Further investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman