Summary: Ms X complains that the independent appeal panel failed to consider her individual circumstances when it considered her appeal for a School place for her son. She also said the panel failed to follow the correct process. The Ombudsman has found no fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant Ms X complains that the school admission appeal panel for a voluntary aided school was at fault in refusing her appeal for a school place for her son.

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 admission appeal 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)
3. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered what Ms X has said in support of her complaint and the appeal documents provided by the admission authority. I made written enquiries of the admissions authority and considered its response.
5. I wrote to Ms X and the Council with my draft decision and invited their comments. No comments were received.

Back to top

What I found

6. Ms X says she was compelled to relocate due to fears for her family’s safety. As a result, she needed a new school for her son. She applied for a Year 4 place for him at a voluntary aided school. Voluntary aided schools are admission authorities and make decisions on applications for places.
7. As there was no vacancy in Year 4 the admission authority refused Ms X’s application. Ms X appealed against the decision. She submitted a written appeal with supporting evidence and attended the appeal hearing to make her case in person.
8. The independent school admission appeal panel refused Ms X’s appeal. Ms X believes the panel was at fault, because:

• it did not properly consider her grounds of appeal.
• she was advised about other schools;
• the panel was not independent as one member was familiar with the school;
• She presented the panel with an ‘indefinite restraining order’ however the minutes of the hearing state that she had not sought an injunction.

9. Independent school admission appeals panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. The panel must consider whether:

• the admission arrangements comply with the law;
• the admission arrangements were properly applied to the case.

10. The panel must then consider whether admitting another child would prejudice the education of others.
11. If the panel finds there would be prejudice the panel must then consider each appellant’s individual arguments. If the panel decides the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal.
12. The Ombudsman does not question the merits of decisions properly taken. The panel is entitled to come to its own judgment about the evidence it hears.
13. The clerk's notes of Ms X's appeal hearing indicate that she was able to present her case, and that her grounds of appeal and supporting evidence were available to the members of the appeal panel. The admissions authority explained that it considered the restraining order presented by Ms X, but this covered her previous home address and the current primary school. The panel concluded that this did not affect St Bernadette’s, and it was a safeguarding issue outside of the School’s grounds. Having considered the case made by Ms X and the admission authority, it was for the panel to decide how much weight to give to the evidence before it. There is no evidence of fault in the way it did so. In the absence of evidence of fault, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the decision the panel made, or intervene to substitute an alternative view.
14. Ms X complains that the panel was not independent as one member was familiar with the school. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict in information, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. In response to my enquiries the admissions authority explained that panel members are suitably trained and experienced. The headteacher said that the panel member was familiar from a previous appeal and from her knowledge had not visited the School in recent years. The clerk to the panel explained that the panel member mentioned that he had in the past visited the School and neighbouring church in a personal capacity. The clerk disputes that there was any lack of independence. Ms X disagrees. I have no evidence to support Ms X’s allegations that the panel was not independent and on balance, I accept the admissions authority’s statement.
15. The clerk to the panel explained that other catholic schools were mentioned during the appeal to help Ms X find a school with an available place. But this did not form a key part of the panel’s deliberations. The panel acknowledged Ms X’s need to move but decided that the admissions authority’s case outweighed her case. I am satisfied with this.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I appreciate that Ms X feels strongly that the decision to refuse her son a place at St Bernadette’s Catholic Primary School is unfair. But I have found no fault in the appeal hearing or in the way the panel reached its decision. In these circumstances the Ombudsman cannot question the panel’s decision.
17. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman