Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for his daughter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an independent school admissions appeals panel’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider if there was fault in the way the decision was reached. If we find fault, which calls into question the panel’s decision, we may ask for a new appeal hearing. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Mr X and his family moved into the Council’s area. Mr X applied for his daughter (Y) to attend year 5 at School Z. Y’s two siblings had already been offered a place at School Z. Because there were no places in year 5 at School Z the Council refused Mr X’s application.

The appeals process

6. Independent appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. They need to consider if the school’s admission arrangements comply with the law, and if they were properly applied to the appellant’s application. They need to decide if admitting a further child would “prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources”. If they think it would, they need to consider if an appellant’s arguments outweigh the prejudice to the school.

Mr X’s appeal

7. The clerk’s notes show the Council’s representative presented their case. They explained how the application had been dealt with and why the Council had not offered Y a place. They explained the difficulties offering a place would cause. The panel and Mr X could ask questions. Mr X presented his case and explained why he wanted a place at School Z. Mr X explained the difficulties it would cause if the panel did not offer a place.
8. The panel decided School Z’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. The panel decided admitting a further child would cause School Z prejudice. The panel decided the evidence put forward in support of Mr X’s appeal was not strong enough to outweigh the prejudice admitting Y would cause School Z. The panel refused the appeal. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.

Assessment

9. I understand Mr X is unhappy the appeal was unsuccessful. But we are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions when the proper process was followed and decisions were properly taken.
10. Each panel needs to reach a decision based on the information before it. The evidence I have seen shows the panel followed the proper process to consider the appeal.
11. The panel considered all the information before it and reached a decision it was entitled to. I have not seen enough evidence the panel did not properly consider the appeal to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman