Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of admission to the complainant’s preferred school (School A) for her grandson. 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 IAP did not properly consider her case for her grandson, G, to attend the School and did not take his needs into account.

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 Miss T and by the Council. I have also sent Miss T a draft decision for her comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Miss T’s daughter applied for a school for G, and the application was successful. However, Miss T now has G in her care, and has applied for School A because it is nearer to her home and G has friends who will be going there.
6. The application was refused, and Miss T appealed. She said that G was quite unsettled and needed to be close to her and with people that he knows.
7. The appeal was refused, and Miss T has complained to the Ombudsman.
8. We will not investigate the complaint however. This is because the appeal was subject to Infant Class Sizes legislation. This states that infant classes may only have 30 children to one class teacher.
9. The IAP had to consider whether that the admission of additional children would breach the infant class size limit and whether it was satisfied on the information provided that there were no measures the Admission Authority could take to avoid this without prejudicing the provision of efficient education or efficient use of resources. It decided that this had been shown.
10. It then had to consider whether the admissions arrangements were lawful and had been properly implemented. The Panel decided they had been.
11. Finally the Panel had to decide whether the decision was reasonable. The test of reasonableness is very high, and whilst sympathetic to Miss T’s case, and to the needs of G, the Panel did not conclude that the grounds had been met.
12. The Ombudsman is unable to consider the merits of a decision that has been properly taken by the Panel. In this case, the Panel has clearly considered the case properly, but was unable to uphold the appeal.
13. Whilst I am sympathetic to the situation that Miss T is in, I am not able to change the Panel’s decision or to recommend a fresh appeal as there is no evidence of fault in the way it made its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman