Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of admission to the complainant’s preferred school for his son. 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 Mr G, says that the IAP did not consider his appeal against refusal of a place for his son properly. In particular he says that the IAP:
• Did not challenge incorrect information or unanswered questions during the presentation of the School’s case;
• Did not take into account his assertion that he lives in the catchment area for the School;
• Did not take into account his case that the school offered to his son is too far away; and
• Gave another child a place on appeal, despite saying that the School had proved its prejudice case.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr G and by the Council. I have also sent Mr G a draft decision for his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr G applied for his preferred school for his son for September 2020. The application was refused on distance grounds, and on the grounds that Mr G is not in the catchment area for the School.
6. Mr G appealed, but the IAP hearing the case refused the appeal.
7. Mr G has complained to the Ombudsman as he believes the IAP did not consider his case properly.
8. Mr G says that the Panel did not challenge incorrect information and unanswered questions during the presentation of the School’s case. I have looked carefully at the clerk’s notes of the hearing. There were many questions and comments from the Panel and the parents present, and I see no evidence of either questions going unanswered or incorrect information being provided.
9. Mr G further says that his application should not have been refused as he lives in the catchment area for the school. The Presenting Officer (PO) however, said that this was not so, he was outside the catchment. Mr G asked for this information to be checked again, and after the hearing, this was done. The PO confirmed that Mr G does not live in the catchment area for his preferred school.
10. Mr G also feels that the IAP did not look into his case against the school offered to him for his son, School B. He says that it is too far away. His son would not be safe going there on his own, and the family would be unable to take him as they have another child in a different school.
11. The clerk’s notes show that the Panel considered these points, but took into account the fact that Mr G applied for School B as his second preference. It took the view that there were other, closer schools that Mr G could apply for, and that any prejudice to Mr G’s son did not outweigh that to the School.
12. As the IAP’s decision was properly taken, with full recognition of all the available evidence, I cannot challenge the merits of the decision.
13. Mr G further complains that another child was offered a place at the School on appeal despite the IAP refusing his appeal on the grounds that the School had made its prejudice case. However, the IAP has to make a decision on the circumstances of each separate case, and it is entitled to take the view that the prejudice to the School did not outweigh the prejudice to another child in different circumstances.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot challenge the merits of a decision that has been properly taken by the Panel.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman