Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel and so we cannot question the merits of its decision.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place for her 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 considered Mrs X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the papers from her appeal. I also gave Mrs X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs X applied for a year 7 place for her daughter (Y) starting in September 2019. Mrs X wanted her daughter to attend School Z. Because there were more applications than places available, School Z used its oversubscription criteria to decide which children it would offer places. School Z did not offer Y a place. This was because all the places available were offered to children with a higher oversubscription criterion than Y.
5. Mrs X appealed the decision not to offer her daughter a place at School Z. Mrs X attended the appeal. During the appeal, the Council and School Z’s representatives explained why it was not possible to offer Y a place. They explained the difficulties admitting a further child would cause. Mrs X and the panel had the opportunity to ask questions.
6. Independent appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. They need to consider if the school’s admission arrangements comply with the law, and if they were properly applied to the appellant’s application. They need to decide if admitting further children would “prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.” If they think it would, they need to consider if an appellant’s arguments outweigh the prejudice to the school.
7. The panel decided the school’s admission arrangements complied with the law and had been properly applied to Mrs X’s application. They decided that admitting further children would cause prejudice to the school. The clerk’s notes show Mrs X had the opportunity to present her individual case. She explained why she wanted Z to attend School Y and the difficulties it would cause if she was not offered a place. The panel decided the evidence put forward by Mrs X was not strong enough to outweigh the prejudice admitting a further child would cause the school.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and we cannot criticise decisions taken without fault. The evidence I have seen shows the panel followed the proper process to consider Mrs X’s appeal. It considered the information presented by Mrs X, the Council, and School Z. It is for panels to decide what weight should be given to each piece of evidence. The decision to refuse Mrs X’s appeal is one the panel was entitled to take. The clerk’s notes match the decision letter sent to Mrs X.
9. I understand Mrs X is disappointed with the panel’s decision. But without evidence of fault in how the panel reached its decision, there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to become involved. An investigation is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel and so we cannot question the merits of its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman