Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of a place for the complainant’s child at her preferred school for her. This is because there is no evidence that any alleged fault by the Independent Appeal Panel hearing the appeal affected its decision and caused injustice to the complainant.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mrs B, says that the Independent Appeal Panel (IAP) did not conduct her appeal properly, which lead her to feel that the decision was not made fairly. In particular, she says that:
• The Chair of the Panel repeatedly referred to Mrs B’s child by a different name, which made her feel the decision may have been made in relation to a different child;
• The Chair and the clerk kept asking the family to speak more slowly, which they considered discriminatory; and
• The Chair asked if Mrs B’s daughter was able-bodied, which she felt may mean the Chair was thinking of the wrong child.

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, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by Mrs B and by the Council. I have also sent Mrs B a draft decision for her comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs B applied for her preferred school for her daughter for September 2020. The application was refused, and Mrs B appealed.
5. The appeal was also refused, and Mrs B has complained to the Ombudsman about the decision.
6. Mrs B says that she feels the decision by the Panel may not have been properly taken due to alleged procedural errors. Firstly, she says that the Chair of the Panel repeatedly referred to her daughter by the wrong name and she thinks the decision may therefore have been taken about the wrong child.
7. I have looked at the clerk’s notes of the hearing, and asked the clerk for any information about this point. There is nothing in the clerk’s notes to evidence the allegation, and the clerk says that she has no recollection of the Chair using the wrong name. I am unable to make a decision on the basis of conflicting accounts. Consequently, I have looked carefully at the case made by Mrs B and at the reasons given by the Panel for refusing the appeal. I am satisfied that the Panel’s refusal was based on information relating to Mrs B’s appeal.
8. Mrs B also says that the clerk kept asking the family to speak more slowly, and she feels that affected the hearing. She says that speaking quickly is a cultural trait, and asking them to slow down was discriminatory. I have made enquiries, and the clerk confirms that she did ask Mrs B’s sister to speak more slowly. She says this is because Mrs B’s sister spoke very quickly, and the clerk was having difficulty in keeping up with accurate note taking. Although I appreciate Mrs B’s family experienced the request as unwelcome and off-putting, it is an appropriate request to make in that circumstance. I have seen no evidence, however, that this would have affected the outcome of the appeal.
9. Finally Mrs B complained that the Chair of the Panel asked if her daughter was able bodied, and she feels this had an impact on the decision as the Chair may have been referring to another child as there was nothing in her appeal to suggest that her daughter was anything but able - bodied. The notes of the hearing show that Mrs B was asked if her daughter was fit and whether she had any medical problems. I do not regard this as an indication that the Panel was referring to the wrong child, as Panels have a general duty to check whether there are reasons why the preferred school should be considered the only viable option. Additionally, having looked carefully at the case made by Mrs B and at the reasons given by the Panel for refusing the appeal. I am satisfied that the Panel’s refusal was based on information relating to Mrs B’s appeal.
10. I have examined carefully the notes of this case, and I have seen no evidence to suggest that the Panel did not consider all the available information properly and take it into account when making its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because although I have been unable to make an evidenced decision in relation to the fault alleged by Mrs B, there is no evidence to suggest that the matters raised affected the Panel’s decision and caused injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman