Summary: The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to allow a parent a second school admission appeal. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council regarding this matter.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mrs B, complained that the Council had unreasonably refused to allow her another appeal about a place for her daughter (‘C’) at her preferred primary 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 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mrs B provided with her complaint, and her comments when we spoke on the telephone. I also gave Mrs B an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision before I reached a final view about her case.

Back to top

What I found

5. C was due to start school in September 2019. When Mrs B applied for a school place for C she listed the School as her first preference. This was because the School is very close to the family home, C was attending the nursery on site, and C’s brother already had a place there.
6. But the Council turned down Mrs B’s application as she made it after the application deadline, and all the places at the School were taken by on time applicants.
7. Mrs B appealed to the independent school admission appeal panel about the Council’s decision. Her appeal case related mainly to C’s medical condition. She said this meant C needed to stay in a settled environment at the School where teachers already knew how to deal with any problems. Mrs B also wanted C to be close to home in case of any emergencies. But the panel turned down Mrs B’s appeal.
8. However Mrs B said she did not have time to obtain full medical evidence about C’s condition before the appeal hearing so the panel based its decision on insufficient information.
9. Subsequently Mrs B obtained further letters from her GP’s surgery with more detail about C’s condition and making recommendations that she should have a place at the School. The letters referred to C’s increasing levels of anxiety as well as a deterioration in Mrs B’s own health since the first appeal.
10. Mrs B then asked the Council to arrange a second appeal on the basis there had been a change in circumstances since the first hearing. But the Council decided Mrs B did not meet the criteria for a second appeal.

Analysis

11. However, I consider there is no sign of significant fault in the Council’s response to Mrs B’s application for another appeal.
12. The Government’s statutory School Admission Appeals Code (‘the Code’) says: ‘Appellants do not have the right to a second appeal in respect of the same school for the same academic year unless, in exceptional circumstances, the admission authority has accepted a second application for the appellant because of a significant and material change in the circumstances of the parent, child or school but still refused admission.’
13. In its response to Mrs B’s application the Council confirmed its policy on repeat applications matches what is said in the Code, and I consider the Council’s assessment of her case was in line with the Code and its own policy.
14. I also suggest the Council gave suitable consideration to the additional information Mrs B provided. In particular I note the Council’s letter in response to Mrs B’s application looked in some detail at the contents of the further letters written by doctors at her surgery, and carried out an appropriate comparison with the information available to the panel at the appeal hearing.
15. In addition I suggest the Council carried out appropriate consultations with the School and the headteachers of the other schools which could offer a place for C.
16. At the end of the day it was for the Council to decide if Mrs B’s application met the high threshold of a ‘significant and material change in the circumstances’. We cannot challenge the merits of councils’ decisions unless there is fault in the way those decisions are made. In this case I do not see sign of fault in the way the Council considered and decided Mrs B’s application. Therefore I have concluded we do not have grounds to start an investigation of her complaint.

Final decision

17. The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to allow her a second school admission appeal regarding a place for her daughter at her preferred primary school. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council in the way it dealt with this matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman