School admissions

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Leeds City Council (20 002 856)

    Statement Not upheld School admissions 23-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mrs M complains about an Independent Appeal Panel's decision not to admit her daughter to a primary school. There is no fault in the Panel's decision. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.

  • Slough Borough Council (20 001 126)

    Statement Upheld School admissions 22-Oct-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his application for and appeal about a place for his daughter at School 1. The errors in the appeal process amount to fault but are not such that they would call into question the panel's decision to refuse Mr X's appeal. It would not therefore be appropriate to recommend a further appeal hearing.

  • Leeds City Council (20 003 735)

    Statement Upheld School admissions 21-Oct-2020

    Summary: Miss B complains that the Council did not properly deal with a school admissions appeal. The Council was at fault because it did not answer questions from Miss B at the appeal hearing and it did not fully record the factors taken into consideration when it decided her appeal. This did not cause injustice to Miss B. The Council has issued guidance to its staff.

  • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (20 002 217)

    Statement Not upheld School admissions 05-Oct-2020

    Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council allocated a place for her child at a school and a school admission appeals panel's decision not to admit her child to a school she expressed a preference for. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council allocated Ms X's child a place at a school. He has also found no evidence of fault in the way the school admissions appeal panel considered Ms X's appeal. So has completed his investigation.

  • Madani Boy's School (19 020 771)

    Statement Upheld School admissions 05-Oct-2020

    Summary: Mr C complained about an independent appeal panel's decision not to admit his son to his preferred secondary school. The Ombudsman finds that the independent appeal panel did not act in accordance with the School Admissions Appeals Code 2012. This was fault. To remedy the injustice caused, the School has agreed to our recommendations to arrange a fresh appeal with a new panel and apologise to Mr C.

  • The Latymer School, Edmonton (19 018 352)

    Statement Upheld School admissions 30-Sep-2020

    Summary: Miss Y complains the school admission appeal panel did not properly consider her appeal against the School's decision to refuse to admit her child. The Ombudsman has found fault in the way the appeal was conducted. The School should remedy this fault by arranging a fresh appeal.

  • Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (19 019 229)

    Statement Not upheld School admissions 28-Sep-2020

    Summary: Ms X complains about the school admission appeal panel's decision to refuse her appeal for a school place for her daughter. Ms X says this meant her daughter was not considered properly for the available place and missed out. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.

  • Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (19 019 147)

    Statement Upheld School admissions 28-Sep-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman upholds Ms X's complaint about the way the Council dealt with her request to defer her daughter starting school in the reception year. The Council applied the wrong test in its decision making. It will retake the decision, apologise and make a payment to Ms X to recognise the impact of the fault, and review other decisions about summer born children to ensure they were made correctly.

  • St. Marys C Of E Foundation Primary School (19 011 295)

    Statement Upheld School admissions 17-Sep-2020

    Summary: Miss X complains the admission authority did not properly consider her request for her summer born daughter to delay starting school into Reception until after she reaches compulsory school age. The Ombudsman finds fault with the admission authority's decision-making process. We have recommended the admission authority apologise and reconsider Miss X's application.

  • St Thomas More Catholic School, Willenhall (19 018 970)

    Statement Upheld School admissions 16-Sep-2020

    Summary: Mr Y complained the independent appeal panel had failed to properly consider an admission appeal for his son, Z. Because there is no record of the panel challenging the school's case, the Ombudsman recommended that the school set up a fresh appeal but it has remedied the injustice by offering Z a place.

Privacy settings

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.