Ombudsman criticises Slough Grammar School’s refusal to remedy injustice

Archived press release

Date Published: 27/11/09

The Ombudsman is not satisfied with the response of Slough Grammar School to a report he issued earlier this year criticising its mishandling of school admission appeals.

Local Government Ombudsman Tony Redmond is not satisfied with the response of Slough Grammar School to a report he issued earlier this year criticising its mishandling of school admission appeals, where it failed to follow the mandatory Code on admission appeals. He has therefore today (27 November 2009) issued a second (further) report.

He says: “I am very disappointed that the Governing Body has refused to accept my recommendation to pay £200 compensation to each of the complainants. It was clear in this case that the parents experienced an unusual amount of time and trouble in having to go through two appeals – both with a number of administrative errors in contravention of the Code – and they had to make two complaints to my office.”

He adds: “I do not consider that the costs of administering the appeal process justifies the School’s refusal to pay a relatively small sum of compensation to parents whose appeals have not been properly administered. Its failure to do so means Mrs Y and Mr X [real names are not used for legal reasons] have been denied a remedy for the injustice they have suffered.”

In his original report (issued 30 June 2009), the Ombudsman identified eight faults with the School’s administration of Mr X and Mrs Y’s appeals, including several instances where its actions were not in accordance with mandatory provisions in the 2008 Admission Appeals Code. These included that neither the Clerk nor the Chairs of the Appeal Panels appointed by the School had had any training about education admission appeals before the fresh appeals were held, and the Admission Authority’s representative was present in the room alone with the members of the Appeal Panel before and/or after both the hearings, although she did not seek to interfere with the appeal process. The decision letters also lacked adequate detail and included an incorrect statement that their child would remain on the School’s waiting list.

The Ombudsman found maladministration by the Governing Body that caused injustice to the complainants. Both Mr X and Mrs Y had a legitimate expectation that their fresh appeals would be arranged in accordance with the relevant Code of Practice, which the Governing Body failed to ensure.

In response to the Ombudsman’s recommendations to remedy the injustice, the School said it had reviewed all the processes and would take the necessary steps to prevent the administrative errors from recurring and to ensure its appeals met the mandatory provisions of the relevant Code. It also agreed to arrange another appeal for Mr X, which was held on 28 August 2009, and it sent the Ombudsman copies of its recent training material provided for panel members.

However, it did “not see how a recommendation for compensation payments is justified where there has actually been no loss”. The Ombudsman is also not aware that it has sent an apology to both families.

The Ombudsman disagreed with its view that the parents had suffered no loss and asked the Governors to reconsider this matter. He also asked how the School had met the legal requirement on it to make an announcement of his report in the local press (under Section 30 of the Local Government Act 1974).

After further correspondence the Ombudsman remains unsatisfied by the School’s response, and has therefore issued his further report calling upon the School to consider this report and provide the full remedy he has recommended.

Further report ref no 08 013 094 and one other