Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of admission to the complainant’s preferred school for her child. 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 Ms T, says that the IAP did not consider her appeal properly. In particular, she says it did not consider her case that:
• The reason given for rejecting the appeal - that more than 176 children in the year group would prejudice provision, – was clearly untrue as two places were given to other children on appeal; and
• Her child was considered under the wrong criterion, and the Panel did not consider this properly.

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 Ms T and by the Admissions Authority. I have also sent Ms T a draft decision for her comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms T applied for a place for her daughter at her preferred school for September 2020. The application was refused as all places were allocated to children with higher priority.
6. Ms T appealed against the refusal, but the IAP did not uphold her appeal.
7. Ms T has complained to the LGSCO as she says that the Panel did not consider her appeal properly.
8. Ms T says that the Panel’s reason for refusal was that the School could not cope with an extra pupil, because despite a Published Admissions Number of 170 children, it already had 176 on roll in the year group. This was due to the addition of children whose Education and Health Care Plan named the School and an admissions error. Ms T feels that the conclusion that the School could not cope with another child was untrue, because two other children were admitted during the appeal process. Additionally, she says that the School had 177 children in Year 7 during the previous year and had coped well with them.
9. The Panel considered the School’s case and the prejudice case put by Miss T. It had to balance the prejudice to the School against that caused to Miss T’s daughter. In this case, the Panel considered the details of the case made by Miss T, but felt it did not outweigh the prejudice to the school. It is a decision that the Panel is entitled to reach, and we cannot challenge the merits of the decision as it was properly made with regard to all the facts.
10. The fact that the Panel may have reached a different decision in the cases of any other appeals with different factors is not relevant.
11. Miss T also complains that the Panel did not consider properly her case that her ex-partner, who put in the application, did not complete the form properly. She says he did not apply under the correct criterion of faith, but under that of exam performance. Miss T’s daughter did take the entrance test, but did not meet the required level.
12. The Panel found, correctly, that this is not fault by the Admissions Authority. It could only consider the application on basis of the information provided and under the requested criterion.
13. The Panel then considered the reasons why Miss T felt the result of the test did not show her daughter’s true potential. The clerk’s notes show that the Panel gave full consideration to all the factors raised, and did not feel this justified a place being given. The decision was properly made and we cannot question the merits of it.

Back to top

Final decision

14. Subject to any comments Miss T might make, my view is that the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the IAP made its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman