Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint that the Council was at fault in failing to allocate her son a school place, and that the school admission appeal panel failed to properly consider her appeal. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mrs A, complains that the Council was at fault in failing to allocate her son a school place, and that the school admission appeal panel failed to properly consider her 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 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 or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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)
4. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered what Mrs A has said in support of her complaint and the application and appeal documents provided by the Council.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs A applied for a school place for son for transfer to secondary school in September 2019. The Council received more applications for her preferred school than it had places available, so it applied its oversubscription policy. It refused Mrs A’s application because her son lives further from the school than the last successful applicant.
7. Mrs A appealed against the Council's decision. She made a written submission and attended the appeal hearing to make her case in person. She set out why she felt her son should attend the school and the impact of an adverse decision. She argued that attendance at the alternative school the Council had offered would be detrimental to her son.
8. Mrs A also argued that the Council was at fault in compelling her to appeal. She said her son had moved down from second position on the waiting list for the school to seventh, as late applicants had moved into the catchment area. As three places had become available since the initial allocation, she believed her son should have been accommodated before late applicants.
9. The school admission appeal panel refused Mrs A’s appeal. She believes it was at fault in doing so, it that it failed to properly consider her grounds of appeal.
10. Mrs A further complains that the Council has failed to explain its decisions. She has made Freedom of Information requests for details of the circumstances of successful applicants for the school.
11. 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.

12. The panel must then consider whether admitting another child would prejudice the education of others. 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.
13. 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.
14. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint because there it is no indication of fault on the Council’s part. As the school was oversubscribed, the Council was correct to consider applications received on time in the initial allocation of places. However, for subsequent allocations from the waiting list, the statutory guidance is clear that applications must be considered according to admission criteria, so the date of application ceases to be relevant. It is not therefore the case that Mrs A’s son should have been allocated a place without having to go to appeal.
15. The clerk's notes of Mrs A's appeal hearing show that the panel considered the points she made in support of her appeal. It decided that her grounds of appeal did not outweigh the prejudice further admission would cause to the school. There is no evidence of fault in the way the panel reached this view.
16. The weight the panel members chose to give to Mrs A's evidence was a matter for them, not the Ombudsman. Without evidence of fault the Ombudsman cannot criticise the panel's decision or intervene to substitute an alternative view. The decision letter from the clerk to the appeal panel set out the reasons for the decision in sufficient detail.
17. The Ombudsman will not consider whether the Council was at fault in declining to disclose the information Mrs A requested. She has made a Freedom of Information request and, if she is unhappy with the response, her recourse is to bring the matter to the attention of the Information Commissioner. The Ombudsman will not intervene.

Back to top

Final decision

18. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman