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 the Independent Appeal Panel (IAP) hearing the appeal made its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Miss T, says that the decisions to refuse the application and the appeal were unfair, and did not take her circumstances into account 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 Miss T and by the Council and I have sent her a draft decision for her comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Miss T applied for a place for her daughter to start school in September 2020 at her preferred school, School A. However, after the application closing date, she moved house, and School A was no longer convenient for her.
6. Miss T applied for the nearest school to her new address, School B but as this was a late application, she was offered a place at School A, her original first choice.
7. Miss T appealed for a place at School B on the grounds that both transport difficulties and after school care considerations made School A difficult for her.
8. The IAP considered the case under Infant Class Sizes regulations. These say that children in infant classes (age 5-7) must not be taught in a class with more than 30 children to each qualified teacher.
9. The presenting office made the case that an additional child would breach the regulations and the measures that would have to be taken in that event would not be an effective use of its resources. The IAP considered the case made, and accepted it,
10. The IAP also considered whether the admissions arrangement were lawful, and has been properly applied in this case. It found that the arrangements were lawful, and that they had been properly applied because Miss T’s daughter was offered the school that she originally applied for, and it is unfortunately not possible to change a preference after the closing date.
11. Final the IAP had to consider whether the decision not to give a place to Miss T’s daughter was reasonable. The test of reasonableness is very high. It is considered to be a decision that is totally perverse and beyond and normal judgement or morality. The IAP considered that the decision was reasonable.
12. Although I can sympathise with Miss T’s problem, I will not investigate the complaint, as the evidence shows that the IAP considered the relevant factors properly. The Ombudsman cannot challenge a decision that has been properly made after due consideration of all the available information.

Back to top

Final decision

13. Subject to any comments Miss T might make, my view is that the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot challenge the merits of a decision that has been properly made.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman