Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint that the Council’s school admission appeal panel was at fault in refusing the appeal for a school place for his daughter. 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 Mr A, complains that the Council’s school admission appeal panel was at fault in refusing the appeal for a school place for his daughter.

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 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered what Mr A has said in support of his complaint and the appeal documents provided by the Council.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr A and his partner applied to transfer their daughter from her current school, to start their preferred school in Year 3 in September 2019. They said they were unhappy with the school’s response to bullying their older daughter had suffered. The Year 3 group at their chosen school was full so the Council refused the application.
5. Mr A and his partner appealed against the Council’s decision to refuse their application. They made a written submission and Mr A’s partner attended the appeal to make their case in person.
6. The school admission appeal panel refused the appeal. Mr A argues that the panel was at fault. He states that the school his daughter attends exceeds its pupil capacity to a greater extent than the preferred school.
7. 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.

8. 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.
9. 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.
10. The clerk’s notes of Mr A’s partner’s hearing show that she was able to make her case to the panel. The weight the panel members gave to her arguments was a matter for them, not the Ombudsman.
11. I attach no significance to whether Mr A’s daughter’s current school has exceeded its capacity. The question for the panel was whether further admission to the preferred school would prejudice the efficient provision of education. It was entitled to find that it would, and that Mr A’s partner’s appeal case did not outweigh the Council’s case.
12. There is no indication of fault in the way the panel considered the questions before it. That being the case, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the panel's decision or intervene to substitute an alternative view.

Back to top

Final decision

13. 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