Summary: Mr B complained that the Council had failed to explain why his address did not fall within the geographical priority area of their preferred secondary school for their daughter. We find that the parents should have raised this matter at the appeal. We do not find any fault in the appeal process and the Council has clarified the information available for checking the geographical priority area.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that in respect of the application for a place at a local school for his daughter, C, the Council has failed to explain why their address is not within the catchment area. This caused him frustration and inconvenience.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Geographical Priority Area

5. Admissions arrangements for Lancashire schools include consideration of whether a child lives within a particular area: geographical priority area (GPA). This is described in the Council’s information booklet and a downloadable map is available online. We could not identify from the information available online, whether Mr B’s property was inside the GPA.

Admission Appeals

6. Independent appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. The panel must consider whether:
• the admission arrangements comply with the law;
• the admission arrangements were properly applied to the case.
• The panel must then consider whether admitting another child would prejudice the education of others.
7. If the panel finds there would be prejudice the panel must then consider each appellant’s individual arguments. If the panel decides the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal.
8. The Ombudsman does not question the merits of decisions properly taken. The panel is entitled to come to its own judgment about the evidence it hears.

What happened

9. Mrs B applied for a place for her daughter, C at their nearest school (School Z). the Council refused a place as she did not live in the geographical priority area. C was offered a place at a school further away but within three miles of the home address.
10. Mrs B appealed against the decision on the grounds that School Z was within walking distance, they had recently moved to the area and were unfamiliar with the schools and most of C’s friends were going to School Z. Mrs B said she had recently become a single parent due to a marriage breakdown and she was reliant on a support network through parents of C’s friends. She said the allocated school was too far away, C has anxiety about public transport and Mrs B also has mental health issues which would be exacerbated by the isolation of her daughter going to a different school.
11. At the appeal hearing the Panel considered information about the school and were satisfied that to admit another child would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources. It then went on to consider Mrs B’s reasons for why C should go to School Z. The Panel fully understood the reasons for the appeal but did not consider they were strong enough to outweigh the prejudice caused to School Z by admitting another pupil.
12. The Council sent a detailed decision letter explaining how the decision was made and the points the Panel had considered.
13. Mr B then complained to the Ombudsman. He enclosed part of a map showing the GPA near their property marked with a thick line. He said the line went through his property. He said it was unfair that a child who lived further away from the school had been offered a place, but his daughter had not. He said the Council had failed to provide evidence to show why the property was not in the catchment area.
14. In response to my enquiries the Council has provided a detailed map showing that Mr B’s property is outside the GPA for School Z. It also noted that this issue was not raised in the appeal and Mr B had made the complaint whereas Mrs B submitted the appeal and said she was a single parent.
15. Mr B has not provided information requested by us or explained why the issue was not raised in the appeal.

Analysis

16. Mrs B could have raised the question over the boundary of the GPA in the appeal but did not to do so. That was the correct route to challenge the way the Council had applied the admission criteria.
17. I cannot identify any fault in the way the Council applied the admissions criteria or administered the appeal. The Council has provided a detailed map showing the boundary of the GPA and Mr B’s property clearly falls outside this line.
18. However, we only pursued this investigation because the information available online was insufficiently detailed to be able to identify exactly where the boundary of the GPA lay. The Council has now clarified that it offers a bespoke service to parents who ring in to query exactly which GPA their address is in. It also offers advice at open evenings where it provides maps and takes away addresses to correctly identify the location.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have completed my investigation into this complaint as I am unable to find fault causing injustice in the actions of the Council towards Mr B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman