Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel, and so we cannot question the merits of its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. This complaint involves events that occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the Council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Principles of Good Administrative Practice during Covid”.
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an independent school admissions appeals 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. If we find fault, which calls into question the panel’s decision, we may ask for a new appeal hearing. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and information from the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X’s wife (Mrs X) applied for a reception place for their daughter (Y) starting in September 2020. Because there were more applications than places available at her preferred school (School Z) the Council used its oversubscription criteria to decide which children it would offer a place. The Council did not offer Y a place at School Z.
6. Mrs X appealed the decision not to offer Y a place at School Z. Emergency legislation introduced by the Government during the Covid-19 pandemic allows school admission appeals to be heard remotely, by video or teleconference. Mrs X’s appeal for a place at School Z was heard over the telephone. Mr X also took part in the appeal.
7. Independent appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. They need to consider if the school’s admission arrangements comply with the law, and if they were properly applied to the appellant’s application. They need to decide if admitting a further child would “prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources”. If they think it would, they need to consider if an appellant’s arguments outweigh the prejudice to the school.
8. During the appeal, the Council’s representative explained why it had not been possible to offer Y a place. They described the difficulties admitting a further child would cause the school. The panel decided the school’s admission arrangement complied with the law and had been properly applied to Mrs X’s application. The panel decided admitting further children would cause prejudice to the school. The clerk’s notes show Mr and Mrs X had the opportunity to present their case. They explained why they wanted Y to attend School Z and the difficulties it would cause if she attended another school. They explained Y’s older sibling attended the partner junior school.
9. The panel considered Mr and Mrs X’s arguments. The panel decided the evidence they had put forward was not strong enough to outweigh the prejudice admitting a further child would cause the school. The clerk’s letter to Mrs X explained the panel’s decision.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and we cannot criticise decisions taken without fault. The evidence I have seen shows the panel followed the proper process to consider the appeal. The panel considered the information provided by Mr and Mrs X and the Council. It is for the panel to decide what weight should be given to each piece of evidence. The decision to refuse the appeal is one the panel was entitled to take.
11. I understand Mr X is disappointed with the panel’s decision. But without evidence of fault in the decision-making process, there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to become involved. An investigation is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel and so we cannot question the merits of its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman