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

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mrs B, says that the IPA hearing the appeal against refusal of admittance to her preferred school for her daughter, did not consider the case properly.

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 or continue with 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 of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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 provided by Mrs B and by the Council. I have also sent Mrs B and draft decision for her comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs B applied for a grammar school place for her daughter for September 2020. The application was refused because her daughter did not meet the prescribed levels in the admission tests.
6. Mrs B appealed against the decision, as she felt that her daughter did meet the required levels, and would be an appropriate pupil for the School.
7. The IAP refused the appeal on the grounds that it did not judge Mrs B’s daughter to be of the required standard to cope with a grammar school curriculum.
8. Mrs B complained. She said the IAP could not have read all the documents as it stated, incorrectly, that her daughter was below the required standard in English.
9. It appears to me, however, that Mrs B has misinterpreted what the IAP said in its decision. It did not say that Mrs B’s daughter was below the required standard in English, but that the combined aggregate score English and Maths was below the required level.
10. Mrs B also says that she does not think the IAP considered properly the supporting letter from her daughter’s school, as the letter said that she was making good progress and would benefit from a grammar school curriculum.
11. The IAP does not deny this in its decision, but it observes that the school did not say that Mrs B’s daughter has reached the required level, and it based its decision on this.
12. Consequently, I do not agree that the evidence suggests that the IAP did not read the appeal papers. The evidence of the clerk’s notes and the appeal refusal letter show that the IAP considered all of the available information and views before making its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

13. Subject to any comments Mrs B might make, my view is that the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way that the IAP made its decision not to allow the appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman