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. 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

3. 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

4. Mr X applied for a year 3 place for his daughter (Y) starting in September 2020. Mr X wanted his daughter to attend School Z because it was close to their new address. Because there were no places in year 3, the Council refused Mr X’s application. Mr X appealed the decision not to offer Y a place at School Z.
5. 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.
6. In his appeal, Mr X explained why he wanted Y to attend School Z. He explained the difficulties it would cause if Y continued to attend her current school. Mr X provided information about his wife’s employment, as well as his own. The clerk’s notes show that Mr X and the panel could ask questions. Mr X had the opportunity to present his case.
7. The panel decided the school’s admission arrangement complied with the law and had been properly applied to Mr X’s application. The panel decided admitting further children would cause prejudice.
8. The panel considered Mr X’s case. The panel decided the evidence put forward by Mr X was not strong enough to outweigh the prejudice admitting a further child would cause the school. The clerk’s letter to Mr X explained the panel’s decision.
9. 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 Mr X’s appeal. The panel considered the information provided by Mr 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 Mr X’s appeal is one the panel was entitled to take.
10. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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