Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to advise Ms X about alternative educational pathways for her son. This is because the injustice Ms X claims is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to provide her with information about alternative educational pathways for her son (Y) when he started Year 8. She says this meant he lost the opportunity to pursue an alternative pathway with School Z before he started studying for GCSEs. She wants the Council to recognise the impact of its failure, apologise, change its system and provide a financial remedy.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
6. The Council has acknowledged that it failed to send Ms X the standard letter about alternative educational pathways, which it should have done when Y started Year 8 in Autumn 2023.
7. While Ms X says this caused a loss of opportunity for Y to pursue an alternative educational pathway at School Z I am not satisfied this is significant enough in the circumstances to warrant further investigation or a remedy. This is because it is too speculative and happened too long ago to properly assess what might have happened, had the claimed fault not occurred.
8. In reaching this view I have taken account of the fact that in order to obtain and attend a place at School Z the following would have needed to happen:
• Ms X and Y would have had to agree an alternative pathway was suitable.
• If it was, Ms X and the school would then likely have wanted to meet to discuss whether the school itself was suitable for Y.
• If they decided it was, Ms X would have had to apply to the school before the deadline.
• The school, which is its own admissions authority, would then have had to accept Ms X’s application and allocate Y a place above at least one applicant who currently has a place. If it had refused Ms X’s application, Ms X would have had to appeal and the appeal panel would have had to uphold the appeal.
• Y would then have had to accept the offer of a place instead of the more traditional pathway to study for GCSEs.
9. If any of the above had not happened then it is unlikely Y would have been offered, or pursued, a place at the school. On this basis I cannot say, on the balance of probabilities, that the above would have happened or, therefore, that Y missed the opportunity to pursue the alternative pathway as a direct result of the Council’s failure to inform Ms X about it sooner.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because the injustice Ms X claims is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman