Summary: The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate a parent’s complaint about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to reject his appeal for a place for his daughter at his preferred secondary school. This is because there is no sign of fault by the panel.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, complained that the school admission appeal panel had unreasonably turned down his appeal regarding the refusal of a place for his daughter (‘Y’) at his preferred secondary school (‘School A’). In particular Mr X felt the panel focussed too much on School A’s case against Y’s admission and did not take proper account of his reasons for wanting Y to go to School A.

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 X provided with his complaint and his comments in response to a draft of this decision. I also took account of documents from the County Council about Mr X’s appeal.

Back to top

What I found

5. In September 2019 Mr X applied for Y to transfer from her existing secondary school (‘School B’) to School A.
6. However School A refused Mr X’s application as there were no vacancies in Y’s year group.
7. Mr X appealed about the refusal of a place, but the independent panel turned this down. Mr X then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

8. 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 finds 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.

9. The Government’s School Admission Appeals Code (‘the Code’) is statutory guidance which sets out how appeals should be conducted and how appeal panels should make their decisions.
10. The panel for Mr X’s appeal decided that School A’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been correctly applied in Y’s case. The panel also accepted School A’s case that taking an additional child would cause prejudice to it and the children already going there.
11. From the evidence provided about Mr X’s appeal, I do not see any sign of fault in the way the panel dealt with these matters, and I consider it acted in line with the Code’s requirements in this respect. As a result I suggest the panel was reasonably entitled to reach the conclusions it did based on the information presented to it at the appeal.
12. Mr X submitted written representations to the panel before the appeal hearing. He also went to the hearing to present his case.
13. Mr X’s case related mainly to problems Y was having at School B and her difficulties travelling there, which were impacting on her health. Mr X also said Y would gain emotionally by joining her friends at School A and would benefit from School A’s strong attainment ethos.
14. However the panel decided that Mr case for Y’s admission did not outweigh School A’s case on prejudice. As a result it refused his appeal.
15. But having gone through the records from Mr X’s appeal hearing I am not convinced that there is any sign of fault in the way the panel considered and decided his case.
16. In particular, it seems to me that the appeal clerk’s notes from the hearing and decision-making, and the panel’s decision letter, show that panel members understood and took suitable account of the information Mr X provided in advance and the case he presented at the hearing.
17. Mr X felt the panel spent too much time considering School A’s case rather than his own. But the panel had to consider School A’s submissions in detail at the first stage of the appeal in order to decide if the admission arrangements were correctly applied and if School A had made its case on prejudice.
18. In addition, the clerk’s notes indicate that the panel gave Mr X a reasonable opportunity to question School A’s case and make his own case. In this respect I also see the clerk noted that Mr X confirmed at the end of the hearing that he had nothing further to add.
19. Mr X felt he had made a good case for Y to be given a place at School A, so he was understandably disappointed by the panel’s decision. But 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.
20. However I have seen no sign of fault in the appeal process or in the way the panel reached its decision in Mr X’s case. Therefore I have concluded that we would not be justified in investigating his complaint.

Final decision

21. The Ombudsman does not have grounds to start an investigation of Mr X’s complaint about the appeal panel’s decision to refuse his appeal concerning a place for Y at School A. This is because there is no sign of fault by the panel.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman