Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of admission to the complainant’s preferred school for her daughter for 2019. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way that the Independent Appeal Panel (IAP) considering the appeal made its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mrs N, says that her daughter has unfairly been refused a place at her preferred school for September 2019, and that the offered school is too far away.

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 council’s 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. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mrs N and by the Council. I have also sent Mrs N a draft decision for her comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs N applied for a place at her preferred school for her daughter for September 2019. The application was refused as all places were taken by children who were higher in the admissions criteria than Mrs N’s daughter. Although Mrs N’s daughter was in the same admissions criterion as the last place offered, she lives further away from the school.
6. Mrs N was offered her sixth preference, but she refused it as being too far from her home. Later, Mrs N was also offered her third preference school, but she also refused that place as being too far from her home.
7. Mrs N appealed against the refusal. She said that the offered school was too far away, and that her preferred school was the nearest to her home.
8. The LGSCO cannot consider the decision reached, as we do not constitute an appeal body. All that we can do is consider whether the IAP considered all the relevant information and took the decision properly. If it has done so, we cannot consider the merits of the decision.
9. In this case, the appeal panel has looked at the available information and considered Mrs N’s case. However, it felt that the prejudice to the child did not outweigh the prejudice to the school.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot challenge the merits of a decision that has been properly taken.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman