Summary: A parent complained about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to refuse her appeal concerning a school place for her son. But there is no sign that any fault by the panel caused the parent an injustice to warrant the Ombudsman starting an investigation of the matter.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Miss B, complained about the school admission appeal panel’s refusal of her appeal for a place for her son (‘C’) at her preferred secondary school (‘the School’). Miss B complained in particular that the panel did not take proper account of her appeal case. Miss B said this was demonstrated by the fact that the panel sent its decision letter to her old address.

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, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (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 Miss B provided with her complaint. I also gave Miss B an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision before I reached a final view in her case. In addition I took account of documents the Council supplied about Miss B’s appeal.

Back to top

What I found

5. C will be transferring from primary to secondary school in September 2020.
6. In October 2019, when Miss B applied for a secondary school place for C, she listed the School as her first preference. At that time she was living at an address quite near the School.
7. The School is its own admission authority so it is ultimately responsible for decisions about admissions. But the School turned down Miss B’s application because all the places were taken by children who had a higher priority than C under its admission policy. In particular those admitted were Baptised Roman Catholics, unlike C.
8. The Council instead offered C a place at another local school which was not one of Miss B’s preferences.
9. Miss B appealed about the School’s refusal decision. By that time Miss B had moved to another part of the town.
10. The School asked the Council to set up an independent appeal panel on its behalf. But the panel turned down Miss B’s appeal. She then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

11. 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 find 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.

12. In normal circumstances appeal panels must allow appellants the opportunity to appear in person and make spoken representations. But the Government has introduced temporary regulations and guidance relating to appeals, in response to the Coronavirus outbreak. In particular the new guidance says admission authorities should not hold face-to-face hearings until it is safe. Instead they should hold hearings by telephone or video conference where possible.
13. The Council (acting on the School’s behalf) decided to arrange video conference hearings for its appeals. I do not see sign of fault in the decision to deal with the appeals in this way, given the circumstances and Government guidance.
14. The panel for Miss B’s appeal decided that the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and correctly applied in C’s case. The panel also agreed with the School’s case that taking an extra child would cause prejudice to it and the pupils already there.
15. From the appeal documents, I am not convinced there is any sign of fault in the way the panel considered these two matters in Miss B’s case. In my view the panel was reasonably entitled to reach the conclusions it did based on the information presented to it at the appeal.
16. Miss B’s appeal case related mainly to the adverse impact on C because of traumatic events in the past year, including a recent house move. In addition Miss B referred to C’s and her own mental health issues. Miss B also pointed out that C had a strong emotional and social bond with his friends who were going to the School, so it was important for his welfare that he joined them there.
17. But the panel decided that Miss B’s case for C to have a place at the School did not outweigh the School’s case on prejudice. As a result it refused her appeal.
18. However, having gone through the records from Miss B’s appeal I do not see any sign of fault in the way the panel considered and decided her case.
19. In particular, I consider the clerk’s notes from Miss B’s individual hearing and the panel’s decision-making, and its decision letter, all indicate that panel members understood and took suitable account of the information she provided in advance and the case she presented on the day. It is also clear that the panel explored the issues with Miss B in some depth in their questions at the hearing.
20. Miss B felt she had made a strong case for C to be given a place at the School, so she was understandably disappointed by the panel’s decision. But at the end of the day the panel was entitled to reach its own view about this matter, having weighed up the information it received from both sides at the appeal. However I have seen no sign of fault in the way the panel reached its decision in Miss B’s case which would give us reason to question that decision.
21. Miss B said she did not find out about the panel’s decision until three weeks after her hearing. She said this was because the decision letter was sent to her old address. Miss B felt this error showed that the panel had not properly considered her case as she had mentioned her house move several times at the hearing.
22. The new Government guidance says appeal decision letters should be sent within seven calendar days of the hearing. In response to our enquiries the Council has provided a copy of a decision letter dated a week after Miss B’s hearing and addressed to her current property.
23. But I see no reason to doubt what Miss B said about the decision letter originally being sent to her old address. On that basis it appears there was fault by the Council (acting on the School’s behalf) in using the wrong address and not informing Miss B of a decision within seven days.
24. In the circumstances I suggest Miss B would have suffered some injustice because of unnecessarily prolonged uncertainty about the appeal result, and being put to the trouble of chasing the authorities for the decision.
25. However I am not convinced that any injustice Miss B suffered is significant enough to warrant an investigation. In particular Miss B was going to be disappointed by the result whenever she received it, and although she had to wait an extra two weeks to find out the decision, this still left many weeks to prepare for the new school year as well time to pursue her complaint about the appeal.
26. In addition I do not agree with Miss B’s view that the error over her address necessarily indicated the panel had not properly understood or considered her appeal. The clerk’s notes from the hearing clearly show that the panel members checked with Miss B about her address details, and that they were aware she was at her old address when she applied for a school place, and that she subsequently moved to her current property.
27. In the circumstances I have concluded that we would not be justified in starting an investigation of Miss B’s complaint.

Final decision

28. The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate Miss B’s complaint about the appeal panel’s decision to refuse her appeal concerning a place for her son at her preferred secondary school. This is because there is no sign that any fault by the panel in the way it dealt with Miss B’s appeal caused her an injustice to warrant our further involvement in her case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman