Summary: The Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate this complaint from a parent about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to turn down his appeal for a school place for his son. This is because there is no sign of fault in the way the panel considered the appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, complained about the school admission appeal panel decision to turn down his appeal about the refusal of a place for his son (‘Y’) at his preferred secondary school (‘the School’).

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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr X provided with his complaint. I also gave Mr X an opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision before I reached a final view in his case. In addition I considered documents the Council supplied about Mr X’s appeal

Back to top

What I found

5. Y was due to transfer from primary to secondary school this year. When Mr X applied for a secondary school place for Y he put the School down as his only preference.
6. But Mr X’s application was refused because all the places at the School were filled by children who had a higher priority than Y under its Admissions Policy. In particular, most successful applicants either lived in the School’s catchment area, already had a sibling there, or had gone to a feeder primary school. However Y did not qualify for a place under any of these criteria.
7. The Council offered Y a place at another local school, but Mr X turned down the offer.
8. Mr X appealed about the refusal of a place at the School. The Council organised the appeal on the School’s behalf. But the independent appeal panel rejected Mr X’s appeal. He then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

9. Appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal for a secondary school place. In particular the panel must consider whether:

• the admission arrangements comply with the law;
• the admission arrangements were properly applied to the child in question.

It must then consider whether admitting another child would prejudice the education of others. If the panel find there would be prejudice it must then consider the appellant’s arguments. If the panel decides the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal.

10. The panel which heard Mr X’s appeal decided that the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and properly applied in Y’s case. The panel also accepted the School’s case that admitting an additional child would cause prejudice to the School and to the education of the children already going there.
11. From the information I have seen about Mr X’s appeal, I consider the panel had good reason to reach those conclusions based on the evidence presented to it at the hearing. In the circumstances I am not convinced there is sign of any fault in the way the panel dealt with the first part of the appeal process in Mr X’s case.
12. Mr X did not go to the hearing to present his appeal case in person. Therefore the panel considered his case based on his written representations.
13. Mr X’s appeal letter set out his reasons for wanting Y to go to the School. In particular Mr X said Y worked hard and would benefit from the good standard of education the School would provide. Mr X also said Y had set his heart on going to the School with his friends from primary school. In addition Mr X said the School was in a convenient location and would be easy to travel to.
14. However, the panel decided that Mr X’s case for Y to be given a place did not outweigh the School’s case on prejudice if he was admitted. As a result it turned down his appeal.
15. Mr X felt strongly that Y should have a place at the School. So he was understandably disappointed by the panel’s decision. But having considered the records from Mr X’s appeal, I have concluded that there is no sign of fault in the way the panel dealt with his case.
16. In particular, I consider that the appeal clerk’s notes of the panel’s deliberations, and its decision letter, indicate that the panel understood and took suitable account of Mr X’s case in making its decision. It also appears that the appeal was organised and run in line with the Government’s statutory Admission Appeals Code.
17. At the end of the day the panel was entitled to reach its own view about the appeal having weighed up the information it received from both sides. But I have seen no sign of fault in the way the panel reached its decision, or in any other part of the appeal process in Mr X’s case.

Final decision

18. The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate Mr X’s complaint about the appeal panel’s decision to turn down his appeal concerning the refusal of a place for his son at the School. This is because there is no sign of fault in the way the panel dealt with this matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman