Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the panel reached its decision, and so we cannot question its merits.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about an unsuccessful school admission appeal.

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 admissions appeals 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered Miss X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the papers from her appeal. I also gave Miss X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. Miss X applied for year 7 school place for her daughter. The school listed first on her application is a Catholic Aided School and so the governing body is the admission authority. The school uses a child’s faith as part of its oversubscription criteria. Miss X had not sent proof her daughter had been baptised by the required date of 31 October 2018 – she did not send this until January 2019 – when her daughter was baptised. This meant the school allocated her daughter an oversubscription criterion of ‘Children attending one of the school’s feeder schools’. Because there were more applications than places available, the governing body used its oversubscription criteria to decide which children it would offer a place. It did not offer Miss X’s daughter a place. In line with its published scheme, the Council offered Miss X’s daughter a place at the nearest school with spaces.
5. Miss X appealed the decision not to offer a place at her preferred school. Miss X attended the appeal. During the appeal, the school’s representative explained why Miss X’s daughter had not been offered a place. They explained the difficulties admitting a further child would cause. Miss X and the panel had the opportunity to ask questions. Miss X explained she was not aware of the need to send proof of baptism by 31 October 2018. The school’s representative explained the proof now supplied had given Miss X’s daughter a higher oversubscription criterion. This gave her a higher position on the school’s waiting list.
6. Independent appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. They need to consider if the school’s admission arrangements comply with the law, and if they were properly applied to the appellant’s application. They need to decide if admitting further children would “prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.” If they think it would, they need to consider if an appellant’s arguments outweigh the prejudice to the school.
7. The panel decided the school’s admission arrangements complied with the law and had been properly applied to Miss X’s application. They decided that admitting further children would cause prejudice to the school. The panel’s notes show that Miss X explained why she wanted her daughter to attend the school. The clerk’s notes show the panel decided the evidence put forward by Miss X was not strong enough to outweigh the prejudice admitting a further child would cause the school.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and we cannot criticise decisions taken without fault. The evidence I have seen shows the panel followed the proper process to consider Miss X’s appeal. It considered the information it was presented with and the decision to refuse Miss X’s appeal is one it was entitled to take.
9. I understand Miss X is disappointed with the panel’s decision. But without evidence of fault in how the panel reached its decision, there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to become involved. An investigation is not therefore appropriate.
10. I note the school’s admission arrangements state that baptism needs to have taken place before the closing date for applications (31 October). Miss X’s daughter was not baptised until after this date. The oversubscription criterion used in the original round of offers was therefore correct. As explained in the appeal, Miss X’s daughter has now been allocated a higher criterion to reflect the fact she has now been baptised.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant the Ombudsman’s involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman