Summary: Mrs X complained the Council misled her and wrongly said her child had been offered a place at a school. Mrs X said this meant she and her child had prepared to start at this school but it was in vain. She said it caused unnecessary and avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council has already apologised. It has also agreed to make a payment to Mrs X to reflect the level of injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council misled her and wrongly said her child had been offered a place at a school.
2. Mrs X said this meant she and her child had prepared to start at this school, but it was in vain. She said it impacted her child’s mental health. She said it caused unnecessary and avoidable distress to both her child and her, and caused frustration and uncertainty. She said she had lost trust and faith in the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
5. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered the information and documents provided by Mrs X and the Council. I spoke to Mrs X about her complaint. I also considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. In 2023, the Council was looking for a suitable school place for Mrs X’s child, O. While the Council was doing this, O had alternative educational provision. The Council had meetings about the alternative provision with Mrs X and O’s original school (which I will refer to as School A).
9. In June, the Council told Mrs X that a school (which I will refer to as School B) offered O an assessment visit. This visit was arranged for September.
10. In early September, School B contacted Mrs X. It said O’s assessment should be postponed because it had reached capacity.
11. Both Mrs X and School A contacted the Council saying the Council had assured them O’s placement at School B would be available to start within two weeks, and this had caused Mrs X distress.
12. Mrs X complained.
13. In the Council’s complaint response, it said School A confirmed the Council told School A and Mrs X during meetings about O’s alternative provision that O would get a place at School B once the assessment was completed. The Council agreed it had misled Mrs X to believe O would get a placement at School B. The Council apologised for its miscommunication and the impact it had on Mrs X, O, and the family.
14. Mrs X then brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

15. Mrs X complained the Council misled her and wrongly said her child, O, had been offered a place at a school.
16. The Council accepted in its complaint response that it had misled Mrs X. The Council accepted it was at fault and apologised for the impact.
17. In response to Ombudsman enquiries, the Council said it did not consider a financial remedy was appropriate because there had only been a period of six days of injustice.
18. I have considered the Council’s position, but I do not agree. The Council spoke to School A. School A said the Council led both Mrs X and School A to believe that O would receive a place at School B. School A said this happened during meetings about O’s alternative provision.
19. As I have said above, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities, meaning we look at the evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
20. In this case, given what School A said, I find it more likely that the Council misled Mrs X before the end of the summer term, at the very least. The Council led Mrs X to believe O was going to start the placement at School B. Over the summer holidays, Mrs X and O prepared for O to start at School B. School B told Mrs X ten days before O’s booked assessment visit that it had to postpone because it had reached capacity. This caused significant injustice. While I am satisfied with the Council’s apology, I do not consider the apology alone is a sufficient remedy for the level of injustice caused.

Back to top

Agreed action

21. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X of £200 to reflect the unnecessary and avoidable distress and uncertainty caused.
22. In arriving at this figure, I have considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies. I have considered the length of time involved and the significant level of distress and uncertainty caused. I therefore consider a payment of £200 is appropriate and proportionate.
23. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation. I uphold Mrs X’s complaint because I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman