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. This is because there is no sign of fault in the way the panel made its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr B, complained about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to refuse his appeal for a place for his daughter (‘C’) at one of his preferred secondary schools (‘the School’). In particular Mr B felt the panel did not take proper account of the case he made for C’s admission to 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 B provided with his complaint. I also gave Mr B an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision before I came to a final view in his case. In addition I took account of documents from the Council about Mr B’s appeal.

Back to top

What I found

5. When Mr B applied for a secondary school place for C for in September 2019, he listed three preferences for schools on his application form. The School was his third preference.
6. But the School turned down Mr B’s application. This was because all the places there were taken by children who had a higher priority than C under the School’s admissions criteria. In particular most of the successful children either had special needs, lived in the catchment area, had a sibling at the School or had been attending one of the feeder primary schools. However C did not qualify under any of these criteria.
7. Mr B’s applications for his other two preferred schools were also turned down. Instead the Council offered a place for C at another local school.
8. Mr B appealed about the refusal of a place at the School. The Council organised the appeal on behalf of the School. But the independent panel turned down Mr B’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 for Mr B’s appeal decided that the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been correctly applied in C’s case. The panel also agreed with the School’s case that accepting an extra child would cause prejudice to the School and the pupils already there.
11. From the evidence provided about Mr B’s appeal I am not convinced there is any sign of fault in the way the panel considered these matters. As a result I consider the panel was reasonably entitled to reach those conclusions based on the information presented to it at the appeal.
12. Mr B went to the appeal hearing to present his own case. Mr B’s case related mainly to C’s need to be in a good school which suited her academic abilities and which had strong religious values. Mr B said the alternative school offered by the Council was not of the same standard as the School. He was also worried C would be bullied there because of a skin condition she suffers from. In addition Mr B said the school run to the School would be convenient for his family, whereas C would not be able to manage the long walk to the offered school.
13. However the panel decided that Mr B’s case for C to be admitted to the School did not outweigh the School’s case on prejudice. Therefore it refused his appeal.
14. But having examined the records of Mr B’s appeal hearing I am not convinced that there is any sign of fault in the way the panel considered and decided his case.
15. In particular, I consider that the appeal clerk’s notes from the hearing and the panel’s decision letter indicate that panel members understood and took suitable account of the case Mr B presented at the appeal. It also seems the panel gave Mr B a reasonable opportunity to make his case at the hearing, and explored the issues with him in their questions on the day. In addition I note the panel checked with Mr B at the end of the hearing to make sure he had said all he wanted to.
16. Mr B felt he had made a strong case for C to be given a place at the School so he was understandably disappointed by the panel’s decision.
17. However, at the end of the day the panel was entitled to reach its own view having weighed up the information it heard from both sides at the appeal. But I have seen no sign of fault in the appeal process or in the way the panel reached its decision in Mr B’s case. Therefore I have concluded that we would not be justified in investigating his complaint.

Final decision

18. The Ombudsman does not have grounds to start an investigation of Mr B’s complaint about the appeal panel’s decision to turn down his appeal for a place for C at the School. This is because there is no sign of fault by the panel in the way it dealt with Mr B’s case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman