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

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not allocate a school place for his child, Child Y, at the school which they have attended throughout nursery.
2. Mr X says this will affect the support he can receive from his family in getting Child Y to and from school. Mr X is worried he, or his wife, may need to leave their employment to ensure Child Y can attend school.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X applied to his preferred school for Child Y before the deadline in January 2026. In April 2026, the Council allocated a different school for Child Y.
7. Child Y did not receive a place at the preferred school. This was due to the Council’s application of the tie-breaker in its admissions policy, based on distance from Child Y’s home to the school.
• “If more applications are received in any criteria then places available, the tie breaker of distance will be used to determine priority. Where two or more applicants have an identical measured distance from school, the place(s) will be allocated randomly by the Synergy admissions system.”
8. Mr X submitted an admission appeal to the Council in April 2026. The hearing took place in July 2026 and the appeal refused.
9. From the papers provided to the appeal panel, it was evident that Child Y lived the identical distance from the school as the last child offered a place. As such, the random allocation element of the tie-breaker became applicable. In the appeal decision letter, it was not clear the Council applied the tie-breaker or the hearing panel considered it.
10. Following our enquiries, the Council provided notes from the appeal clerk to show the panel were aware the random allocation had been applied. It also evidenced the panel considered it as part of their questions in the hearing and their deliberations after it.
11. The Council has applied the admissions policy fairly when allocating a school place to Child Y. The appeal panel has then duly considered the matter. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about a school allocation for Mr 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