Summary: A parent complained about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to turn down his appeal regarding the refusal of a place for his daughter at his preferred secondary school. But the Ombudsman does not have reason to start an investigation in this case because there is no sign of fault in the way the panel considered the appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, complained about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to turn down his appeal for a place for his daughter (‘Y’) at his preferred secondary school (‘the School’). Mr X complained in particular that the panel did not take proper account of the fact that Y’s sibling already goes to the School and that the alternative school offered by the Council was too far away.

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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a school admission appeal 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr X provided with his complaint and the comments he made in response to a draft of this decision. I also took account of documents about Mr X’s appeal which the School provided.

Back to top

What I found

5. Y transferred from primary to secondary school in September 2020.
6. When Mr X applied for a secondary school place for Y he listed the School as his first preference. However the School turned down Mr X’s application.
7. This was because Mr X had applied after the closing date for applications. As Mr X’s application was late it was only considered after all the on-time applications. But by then all the places at the School had been taken. Instead the Council offered Y a place at Mr X’s second preference school.
8. Mr X appealed about the refusal of a place for Y at the School, but the independent appeal panel turned this down. Mr X then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

9. In normal circumstances appeal panels must allow appellants the opportunity to appear and speak in person. But the Government introduced temporary regulations and guidance relating to appeals, in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. In particular the new guidance said admission authorities should not hold face-to-face hearings until it was safe to do so. Instead authorities should hold hearings by telephone or video conference or, where this was not possible, on the basis of written representations only.
10. The panel offered to hold Mr X’s appeal by telephone, but he declined this offer and asked for the appeal to be heard based on written representations. In the circumstances I do not see sign of fault in the panel’s decision to deal with Mr X’s case in this way.
11. Appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal for a secondary school place. In particular the panel must consider whether:

• the admission arrangements comply with the law;
• the admission arrangements were properly applied to the child in question.

It must then consider whether admitting another child would prejudice the education of others. If the panel find there would be prejudice it must then consider the appellant’s arguments. If the panel decides the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal.

12. The panel in Mr X’s appeal decided that the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and correctly applied in Y’s case. The panel also agreed with the School’s case that taking an extra child would cause prejudice to it and the children already going there.
13. But from the evidence provided, I am not convinced there is any sign of fault in the way the panel considered these two matters in Mr X’s case. In my view the panel was reasonably entitled to reach the conclusions it did based on the information presented to it at the appeal.
14. Mr X’s appeal case related mainly to the fact that Y already had a sibling at the School and his belief that it would be a good school for Y as well. Mr X also said Y would not be able to travel the long distance to the offered school and he could not manage the school run to two different schools. However Mr X said that would not be a problem if both of his children went to the School
15. But the panel decided that Mr X’s case for Y to be admitted to the School did not outweigh the School’s case on prejudice. Therefore it refused his appeal.
16. Having gone through the records from Mr X’s appeal I am not convinced that there is any sign of fault in the way the panel considered and decided this matter in his case.
17. In particular, I consider that the appeal clerk’s notes from the panel’s decision-making, and its decision letter, show that panel members understood and took suitable account of the information Mr X provided about his case.
18. Mr X felt he had given strong reasons for Y to be awarded a place at the School, so he was understandably disappointed by the panel’s decision. But at the end of the day the panel was entitled to reach its own view about the matter, having weighed up the information it received from both sides at the appeal. However I saw no sign of fault in the appeal process or in the way the panel reached its decision in Mr X’s case.
19. Therefore I have concluded that we would not be justified in starting an investigation of Mr X’s complaint.

Final decision

20. The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate Mr X’s complaint about the appeal panel’s decision to reject his appeal regarding a place for his daughter at his preferred secondary school. This is because there is no sign of fault by the panel in the way it dealt with Mr X’s case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman