Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about an Independent Appeal Panel (IAP)’s decision not to uphold the complainant’s appeal regarding a place for his daughter at his preferred secondary school, and the Council’s decision not to hold a new appeal hearing. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by either the IAP or the Council in the way they made their decisions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Mr X, says that:

• The IAP hearing his appeal against the refusal of a place for his daughter at his preferred school, did not consider his case fairly, or in full; and
• The Council has unfairly refused to offer him a fresh appeal hearing.

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 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 an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 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 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

4. I read what Mr X has told us about his complaint and the information provided by the Council about the appeal and the hearing. I also sent Mr X a copy of the draft decision for his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X appealed against the decision to decline a place for his daughter at his preferred school. The Council sent him an appeal invitation letter with the date, time and location of the appeal hearing. The letter also confirmed that any additional information must be submitted at least four working days before the appeal, and if later than this, it may not be considered at the hearing.
6. Mr X arrived after the start time for the hearing. He had further information with him in support of the appeal. The hearing record, completed by the Panel Clerk, shows the IAP waited 10 minutes before starting the hearing in Mr X’s absence. The IAP considered the School’s submission and the information Mr X had provided before the hearing.
7. After the IAP had made its decision, the Clerk left the hearing room and found Mr X waiting outside. The Clerk told Mr X it was too late for the IAP to hear him now, as it had already made a decision. The Clerk checked with the IAP which confirmed it had already decided the case.
8. The Council wrote to Mr X confirming the appeal had been unsuccessful. The IAP did not consider there were special circumstances overriding the prejudice to the provision of efficient education and use of resources at the School.
9. The Council declined Mr X’s request for another appeal hearing.

Assessment

10. I appreciate that Mr X explained he was running late on the day due to unforeseen circumstances. But the Council did not receive any contact about this before the hearing started, so was not able to let the Panel Clerk and IAP know. Mr X had not said he would be bringing additional information with him to the hearing.
11. The IAP did not know that Mr X was on his way but running late. And it waited 10 minutes before starting the hearing without him. It considered all the information he had already submitted before making its decision.
12. I have seen no sign of any fault in the appeal process or in the way the IAP reached its decision.
13. There is also no fault in the Council’s refusal to offer another appeal hearing, as the absence of Mr X, and the unavailability of the additional evidence at the hearing were not due to any fault by the IAP.
14. If Mr X believes that the additional information he has amounts to a substantial change of circumstances, he has the right to ask for a completely new appeal.

Final decision

15. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the IAP in the way it dealt with the appeal hearing and made its decision, or by the Council in declining Mr X’s request for a new hearing.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman