Summary: Miss B complained about the way her appeal against the refusal of a school place for her daughter, C, was handled. We cannot find fault with the actions of the appeal panel.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains that the Admissions Appeal Panel did not properly consider her case and awarded places to other children unfairly. Her child is without a school place.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a school’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the school and considered the comments and documents the school provided. I have written to Miss B and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Appeals

5. Independent appeal 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.
6. The panel must then consider whether admitting another child would prejudice the education of others.
7. 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.
8. 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.

What happened

9. Miss B’s daughter, C, was at St Bede’s Catholic Infant School. She needed to apply for a place for her daughter to go into year three at the associated Junior school. She did not realise this and missed the application deadline. Her older daughter was already at the Junior School and this meant C would have been eligible for a place if Miss B had applied on time.
10. Miss B made a late application for a place on 15 March 2019. She put her mother’s address on the application form as she lived nearer to the school and C spent a lot of time there. The Council notified Miss B on 16 April 2019 that her application was unsuccessful as the school was full.
11. Miss B appealed against the refusal on 18 April 2019. She said C needed a place at the school because her older sister was already there and her younger sister was due to start at the infant school in September. She said she had not been notified by the headteacher of the infant school about the need to apply for a place otherwise she would have done so.
12. Miss B’s appeal was heard along with a number of others on 12 June 2019. The Panel decided that the school was full and to admit another pupil would cause prejudice to the efficient education of the rest. It then went on to consider the individual arguments of each case.
13. Miss B explained that C had friends at the school and was settled. She had not realised she had to apply for a place but did so as soon as she found out. She said it would be chaotic to get three children to different schools for the same time. The Panel questioned Miss B about her address. She admitted it was her mother’s address but said the children were there a lot.
14. The Panel considered the case but unanimously decided that the reasons for wanting to go to the school did not outweigh the prejudice caused by admitting another child. Two of the appeals were successful.
15. Miss B complained to the Ombudsman. The school said the clerk informed the Panel at the hearing of other schools with places available including another catholic school and schools nearer her home address. The Council also confirmed it had spoken to Miss B on several occasions about available places.
16. Miss B considers the Panel placed too much weight on the issue of the wrong address. She has provided further reasons why she did not put her own address on the form.

Analysis

17. I cannot identify any fault with the way the Panel considered the appeal. It went through the two-stage procedure and, after hearing from Miss B decided that her individual reasons for wanting C to go to the school did not outweigh the prejudice caused to the school by admitting another child.
18. In respect of the address issue the Panel was entitled to take this into account in its consideration of the case. The notes suggest it saw this as evidence that Miss B could travel to take the children to school and so could take up places at one of the available alternatives. This was a material consideration. Miss B had an opportunity to give all relevant information to the Panel at the appeal.
19. I have seen the successful cases and there were different circumstances leading to the different decisions. I cannot conclude that there was fault leading to Miss B being unfairly treated.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have completed my investigation into this complaint as I am unable to find fault causing injustice in the actions of the Council towards Miss B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman