Summary: The Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate this complaint from a parent about a school admission appeal panel hearing in her daughter’s case. This is because there is no sign of fault by the panel which affected the outcome of the appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mrs X, complained about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to refuse her appeal regarding a place for her daughter (‘Z’) at her preferred secondary school (‘School A’). Mrs X complained in particular that panel members introduced and relied on new information which had not been raised in her or School A’s appeal cases.

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 must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mrs X’s representative (‘Mr L’) provided about her complaint. I also gave Mr L an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision before I reached a final view about the case. In addition I took account of documents from the Council about Mrs X’s appeal.

Back to top

What I found

4. When Mrs X applied for a secondary school place for Z for September 2018 she listed School A as her first preference.
5. But Mrs X’s application for School A was refused as all the places there went to applicants with a higher priority than Z under its admissions policy.
6. Instead the Council offered Z a place at School B, which was another of the schools Mrs X listed as a preference.
7. However Z suffered bullying after starting at School B. As a result Mrs X made an in-year application for her to transfer to School A. But the Council refused this new application as there were no available places at School A.
8. The Council subsequently offered a place for Z at School C, which was also one of Mrs X’s original preferences. But Z was unable to settle at School C. In the circumstances Mrs X decided to appeal about the refusal of Z’s application for School A.
9. However the independent appeal panel rejected Mrs X’s appeal. She then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

10. Appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal for a secondary school place. In particular the panel must consider whether:

• the admission arrangements comply with the law;
• the admission arrangements were properly applied to the child in question.

It must then consider whether admitting another child would prejudice the education of others. If the panel find there would be prejudice it must then consider the appellant’s arguments. If the panel decides the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal.

11. The panel for Mrs X’s appeal decided School A’s admission arrangements were lawful and properly applied in Z’s case. It also agreed that admitting another child would cause prejudice to School A and the pupils already there. But from the evidence provided I do not see any sign of fault in the way the panel considered these matters, and I consider it was reasonably entitled to reach those conclusions based on the information presented to it at the appeal.
12. Mrs X and Mr L attended the appeal hearing. Mrs X’s appeal case related mainly to Z’s health issues and unhappy experience at secondary school so far, and her need to go to her local school where she already had friends and an established support network. Mrs X also referred to her family’s difficult domestic circumstances because of having to care for Z’s sibling who has special needs, and the adverse impact this has on Z.
13. However the panel decided that Mrs X’s case for Z’s admission did not outweigh School A’s case on prejudice, and it refused her appeal.
14. But having considered the records from the appeal hearing I am not convinced there is sign of fault in the way the panel considered and decided matters in Mrs X’s case.
15. In particular, the appeal clerk’s notes from the hearing and the panel’s decision making, and its decision letter, indicate to me that the panel members understood and took suitable account of the case Mrs X and Mr L put forward at the appeal.
16. It also seems clear the panel gave Mrs X and Mr L a reasonable opportunity to make their case, and I note the panel checked with Mrs X at the end of the proceedings to make sure she had said all she wanted to.
17. Mrs X is unhappy that a panel member asked her a question about whether Z’s behavioural problems may have a physical cause, as this issue was not raised in her or School A’s appeal cases.
18. But I am not convinced this is a matter of fault we should pursue. In particular I do not see that there is any restriction on panel members raising new issues which were not in the written appeal cases, in their questions to either party at the hearing. I also consider that in general panel members raised and explored relevant issues with Mrs X and Mr L in their questions in this case.
19. In addition, even if the panel member’s question was viewed as inappropriate or irrelevant, I do not see this had any impact on the outcome of the appeal. In particular I do not see that the particular issue the panel member raised featured at all in the panel’s considerations when it made its decision about the appeal.
20. Mrs X also felt another panel member asked an inappropriate question to School A’s presenting officer about the unexpectedly high number of children with special educational needs (SEN) who were admitted to the year group.
21. Mrs X said in asking this question the panel member had wrongly relied on their prior knowledge about School A and other appeals rather than any written evidence submitted for her own appeal. She also felt that by raising this issue the panel member led the presenting officer to emphasise matters which had not been part of the School A’s appeal case before that.
22. But I do not see that the panel member was precluded from asking this question, which was evidently about a relevant topic. In addition, having considered the appeal documents, I note that School A’s statement does refer to the high number of SEN children in the year group in support of its case on prejudice. Therefore I consider it was appropriate for the panel to have explored this issue on the day.
23. Furthermore I do not see that the discussion at the hearing introduced any significant new information about the issue of pupils with SEN at School A, or that there is evidence to show that panel members unduly led the presenting officer in what he said about this matter.
24. Mrs X felt she had a strong case for Z to be admitted to School A, so she was understandably disappointed by the panel’s decision to turn down her appeal.
25. Ultimately, however, the panel was entitled to reach its own view having weighed up the information it heard from both sides at the appeal. But I see no indication of fault in the way the panel reached its decision about Mrs X’s appeal. I also found no sign of fault concerning any other part of the appeal process in her case.
26. As a result, I consider it is very unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would find grounds to question the merits of the panel’s decision in Mrs X’s case, so we do not have reason to pursue her complaint.

Final decision

27. The Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the appeal panel’s rejection of her appeal concerning the refusal of a place for Z at School A. This is because there is no sign of fault by the panel which affected the outcome of the appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman