Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of admission to the complainant’s preferred school for her daughter. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way that the Independent Appeal Panel (IAP) considering the appeal made its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mrs X, complains that the IAP failed to consider properly her appeal against the refusal of a place at her preferred school for her daughter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)
4. 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 or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information and evidence provided by Mrs X and the IAP. I sent Mrs X a draft decision for comment and considered all the comments she sent to me.

Back to top

What I found

6. When Mrs X moved house, she applied for her daughter (Y) to transfer to Year 3 at School Z. The Council refused her application because there were no places in Y’s year group at School Z. Mrs X appealed the IAP’s decision not to offer Y a place. Mrs X had applied at the same time for her younger daughter to transfer to Year 1 at School Z. The application was successful as a place was available for this year group.
7. IAPs 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.
8. The Panel decided the School’s admission arrangements complied with the law and had been properly applied to Mrs X’s application. It decided that admitting further children to Y’s year group would cause prejudice to the School.
9. Mrs X attended the appeal in person. During the appeal, Mrs X asked School Z’s representative questions and provided the Panel with information in support of her appeal. She explained why she wanted Y to attend School Z and how the shorter journey time would significantly assist with managing her and a number of her children’s health needs.
10. The Appeal Panel refused her appeal. Mrs X says that the Panel discriminated against her based on her mental health by asking questions that were not necessary. She also says it failed to take her mental health into account when reaching its decision.
11. The clerk’s notes show the Panel considered Mrs X’s reasons for wanting her daughter to attend School Z and her family’s circumstances that led to their move. The notes show 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. The clerk wrote to Mrs X to explain the Panel’s decision. The letter sets out the points raised during the appeal and matches the clerk’s notes and submissions made by Mrs X and School Z.
12. I understand that the Panel’s questions concerning Mrs X’s mental health made her uncomfortable and she is disappointed with the Panel’s decision. However, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body and we cannot criticise decisions taken without fault. Based on the evidence, I cannot see any evidence of discrimination. The evidence I have seen shows the Panel followed the proper process when considering Mrs X’s appeal and considered fully the information it was presented with. The decision to refuse Mrs X’s appeal is one it was entitled to take and without evidence of fault in how the Panel reached its decision, there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to become involved. An investigation is therefore not warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the IAP hearing the appeal. We therefore cannot question the merits of its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman