Telford & Wrekin Council (22 007 457)

Category : Education > School admissions

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 19 Jan 2023

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a school admissions matter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained the Council allowed his child’s mother to change her application for a school place after the Council’s published cut-off date. Mr X is unhappy with the school place his child (Y) has been offered. Mr X wants the Council to pay for the extra childcare he says is needed because of the school Y will attend. Mr X also wants an apology and a detailed investigation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:
  • there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
  • we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
  • further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

  1. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Complaint response

  1. In its response to Mr X’s complaint the Council said:
    • Y’s mother (Mrs Z) applied for a school place. The application contained three preferences, previously agreed with Mr X.
    • Mrs Z contacted the Council after the published cut-off date for changes of 15 January and asked to amend her preferences. The Council’s policy is to only accept late changes if there are exceptional circumstances. The Council accepted Mrs Z’s reasons for the late changes, but it could not share these reasons with Mr X.
    • Mr X contacted the Council on 22 March about the application. But because it had been made by Mrs Z, the Council could not discuss it with him. It was also too late by this point to make any further changes to applications.
    • When primary school places were offered in April, Mr X found out the preferences had been changed. This meant Y had been offered a place at School C, instead of School B, the original first preference.
    • Mr X contacted the Council. It explained it was not its role to become involved in disputes. Parents needed to find a way to agree on a place or apply to the family court for direction.
    • The Council said it could offer a place at either School B or School C. It was for Mr X and Mrs Z to decide which to accept.
    • Because an agreement could not be reached, the matter was considered in court. A Specific Issue Order was made, and this ordered that Y should attend School C.
    • The placement was decided by the Court and the Council was not responsible for any costs this might lead to.

Assessment

  1. Those with parental responsibility can apply for a school place. There is no requirement for councils to obtain consent from both parents before they process an application or make changes to an application if requested by the applicant.
  2. Mrs Z has parental responsibility for Y and was entitled to apply for a school place. As Mrs Z made the application, she also had the right to ask the Council to amend it.
  3. The Council’s policy is to only make changes after the cut-off date of 15 January if there are exceptional circumstances. It decided to agree to Mrs Z’s request. I know Mr X is unhappy with this decision, but it does not mean the Council was wrong to agree to the request. It is a decision the Council was entitled to reach and not one we will criticise.
  4. The Council then considered Mr X’s concerns and said it could offer a place at School B or School C. There was no requirement to do this, but it provided an opportunity for Y to attend Mr X’s preferred school. This was dependent on Mr X and Mrs Z reaching an agreement.
  5. The matter then proceeded to court, and it was ordered that Y would attend School C. This is a decision we have no powers to question.
  6. Mr X says because Y had already been offered a place at School C, this influenced the Court’s decision. But that is not something we can say, and we cannot consider what happens in court.
  7. Even if the Council had not agreed to process Mrs Z’s change of preference, it is possible the matter could have still proceeded to court. We do not know what the outcome would have been. But it is possible the Court could still have ordered that Y attend School C. The outcome could therefore have been the same.
  8. Mr X also says the Council should have suspended the original application when it became aware of the dispute. Mr X referred to information on the Council’s website which says it will take this approach when there is a disagreement about preferences and offer a place at the nearest school. I asked the Council about this, and it said the information on its website should say it “may” take this approach. I note there is nothing in the Council’s co-ordinated admissions scheme to support either option. However, the nearest school was not one of the original or revised preferences. If the Council had taken this approach, it seems the matter would still have proceeded to court. We could not say what the outcome would then have been. But as above, it is possible the Court could still have ordered that Y attend School C.
  9. Based on the evidence I have seen there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. It was not fault to change the application after the published cut-off date. The school Y should attend has been decided in court and that is not something we can look at. The Council says information on its website was wrong. But we could not say that if the Council had followed its published approach that the outcome would have been any different. The Council has considered Mr X’s complaints and provided what I consider to be proportionate and reasonable responses.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings