Summary: Mrs X complained about how the admission appeal panel for a Foundation school carried out the appeal process for her child, Y. The School has since offered Y a place, therefore I have discontinued my investigation as there is nothing more I could achieve.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about how the school admission appeal panel for a Foundation school carried out the appeal process. She said it:
• changed the Infant Class Size Appeal to a two-stage appeal immediately before the appeal hearing started;
• did not allow her to speak freely and respond to the School’s case;
• wrote factually incorrect information in the appeal outcome letter; and
• did not properly consider the School’s failure to follow the correct admissions process.
2. Mrs X has a medical condition and said the journey to the alternative school offered would make managing her disability impossible and prove a risk to her safety and that of her children.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question a 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. 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 further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read Mrs X’s complaint and the appeal documents provided by the admission authority.
6. Mrs X and the admission authority both had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. Mrs X applied for a reception place for her child, Y at a Foundation school for admission September 2019. Y already attended the nursery attached to the school.
8. Foundation schools are admission authorities and decide their own admissions. The Foundation school applied for, awards priority to children who:
• Are looked after or were previously looked after.
• Have siblings at the school and live within an 800 metres distance of the school.
• Have an exceptional medical or social need for a place at the school as decided by the Governing Body.
• Live nearest the School.
9. Alongside the application for Y, Mrs X provided a letter from her Consultant Neurologist. That explained she suffered from excessive daytime sleepiness and had a restricted driving licence. The School’s Board of Governors (the Board) spoke to the nursery at the School who were unaware of the condition. The Board decided her medical needs did not mean the School was the only one that could meet Y’s social needs.
10. The Board then considered if it should offer Y a place under the distance priority. Based on that, the Board refused Y a place.
11. Mrs X appealed against the Board’s decision. She made a written submission and attended the appeal hearing to make her case in person. The appeal panel refused the appeal.
12. After complaining to the Ombudsman, the Board reconsidered the information Mrs X provided to the appeal panel. The Board offered Y a place starting September 2019.

My findings

13. As the Board has now offered Y a school place, I have discontinued my investigation. That is because I could not achieve any more for Mrs X by investigating her complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. Mrs X complained about how the admission appeal panel carried out the appeal for her child, Y. I have discontinued my investigation because Y now has a place at the School and I could not achieve any more for Mrs X by investigating further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman