Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about her unsuccessful application for a school place for her daughter because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains following her unsuccessful application for a school place for her daughter, G. She complains the Council failed to follow paragraphs in the school admissions code relating to the deferred entry of summer born children to a reception class. She says her daughter is without a school place as a result.

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 we 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I have carefully considered everything Ms X said, although I have not included every detail here. I have included as few details as possible to protect the anonymity of Ms X and her daughter.
6. Ms X’s daughter, G, is a summer born child. In May 2025, the Council agreed G could start school in a reception class in September 2026 when she reaches compulsory school age.
7. Ms X applied for places for September 2026. She was not offered her first choice. The school was oversubscribed and all the places were allocated to children with higher priority. These were children living considerably closer to the school.
8. G was offered a place at Ms X’s second choice school. However, Ms X did not want this school following what she described as a “safeguarding incident” during a visit and declined the offer. This left G without a school place.
9. Ms X appealed the decision to refuse G a place at her first choice school. Her appeal was unsuccessful.
10. Ms X complained the Council failed to follow the school admissions code when considering her application. She believes the Council should have consulted the head teacher at her preferred school. She also believes G should have been given priority because of the concerns she raised about her second choice school following the “safeguarding incident”. The Council did not uphold Ms X’s complaint. Unhappy with the outcome, Ms X complained to us.
11. We cannot help.
12. The paragraphs Ms X referred to in the school admissions code require the Council to consult the head teacher when considering a parent’s request to defer their child’s entry to reception. In G’s case, this was in May 2025. They do not require the Council to consult the head teacher when considering her application for a place. It would have been wrong for the Council to do so.
13. Ms X is unhappy the Council offered a place at her second choice school after she told the Council about her safeguarding concerns. Ms X informed the Council after applications had closed when it was too late to alter her preferences.
14. An independent appeal panel considered all the points Ms X made, but decided there were no grounds to admit her daughter to her preferred school.
15. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
16. At the time of her appeal, there were 12 schools closer than her first choice school that still had reception places available. The Council offered to help Ms X to find a school place. The reason Ms X’s daughter is without a school place does not appear to be the result of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Ms X’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