Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a school allocation for Miss X’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to warrant further investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that a school admissions appeal for her Child, Child Y, did not recognise an error made by the Council in calculating distance for home to school transport. Miss X complains the panel did not provide written reasons about how it reached its decision.
2. Miss X feels her Child’s circumstances were not considered, and the appeal was not fair. She is seeking a fresh hearing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B).
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X applied to her preferred school for Child Y before the deadline in January 2026. Child Y had attended the school’s nursery provision and Miss X wanted them to transition into Reception at the school.
8. The Council allocated a different school for Child Y under its admissions criteria.
   Each school has a published admissions number (PAN), which outlines the amount of school places available in a year group. The PAN for the year group was 45, with 111 applications received. Where there are more applications than places available, places are allocated by distance from home to school, with those living the shortest distance from school awarded places up to a maximum of 45.
9. Miss X submitted an admission appeal to the Council. This was heard in July 2026. The appeal was refused.
10. Miss X said the decision letter did not outline the reasons her appeal was refused. The appeal decision letter set out the panels reasoning appropriately, noting its consideration for Child Y’s circumstances, infant class size legislation and the School Admissions Appeal Code 2022.
11. Based on the clerking notes from the appeal panel, the panel were aware, and questioned the Council, on the first calculation from Miss X’s address to the school. The Council advised the recalculated route moved Child Y up the waiting list for a place. The recalculated distance was still further the last child awarded a place lived from the school.
12. The Council made an allocation in line with its published admission policy when allocating a school place to Child Y. The appeal panel then considered the matter and made its decision in accordance with the School Admissions Code 2021. As the decision was made in accordance with the relevant guidance, we cannot therefore question the outcome and Paragraph 4 of this decision statement applies. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint about a school allocation for Miss X’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman