Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place and about alternative educational provision because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains about an unsuccessful school appeal for her son (Z). She is unhappy that Z has not been offered a place at her preferred school.
2. Miss Y also complains that the Council failed to make alternative educational provision for Z.
3. She says that Z’s education, confidence and social skills have been negatively impacted by the Council’s actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Miss Y and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss Y applied for a school place in year two for Z at her preferred school. Because there were more applications than places available, the Council used its oversubscription criteria to decide which children it would offer places. The Council could not offer Z a place at Miss Y’s preferred school but offered a place at the nearest alternative. Miss Y appealed this decision.
9. The School Standards and Framework Act limits the size of infant classes. The Appeals Code refers to these as infant class size (ICS) appeals. Panels can only uphold these appeals in limited circumstances.  
10. In this case, before refusing the appeal, the panel decided the Council’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. The panel decided admitting a further child would breach the ICS limit and the decision to refuse admission was one a reasonable authority would have made.
11. Miss Y wanted Z’s health to be considered. The panel did consider this and noted that Miss Y had not embarked on the Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) route.
12. We are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions when the proper process was followed, and decisions were properly taken.
13. The panel considered all the information before it and reached a decision it was entitled to. It considered the limited grounds on which it could uphold an ICS appeal and the information presented by the Council and Miss Y. This includes the key points raised in the appeal. The clerk’s notes record the panel’s deliberations and match the decision letter.
14. While I understand Miss Y is unhappy her appeal was unsuccessful, we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions. Therefore, we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
15. Miss Y complained to the Council about Z being out of school, and alternative educational provision not being provided. Miss Y says this is a breach of the Council’s duty under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996.
16. It is not for the Ombudsman to express a view on whether the Section 19 duty applies. That decision is for the Council. The question for us is whether there is evidence of fault in the way the Council made the decision not to make alternative provision.
17. The Council explained that it had offered Z a reasonable school place, but that Miss Y refused this because it was not her preferred school.
18. Miss Y says Z cannot attend school on medical grounds. The Council considers the medical evidence provided to not evidence significant medical need. It will therefore not provide alternative education provision.
19. Miss Y is currently homeschooling Z, which she has a right to do. The Council has explained that Miss Y can reapply through school admissions for a school placement for Z if she chooses to do so.
20. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions and therefore will also not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman