Summary: We do not have reason to investigate this complaint from a parent about the way a school admission appeal panel dealt with his appeal for a school place for his son. This is because there is no sign of fault by the panel.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr B, complained about the way the school admission appeal panel handled his unsuccessful appeal regarding a place for his son (‘C’) at his preferred primary school (‘School X’). Mr B complained in particular that the panel was biased in favour of School X and spent much more time talking to School X’s representative than to him. Mr B also complained the panel did not take enough account of his wife’s health issues and he was not given an opportunity to provide medical evidence.

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 our record of the information Mr B provided when he made his complaint to us by telephone. I also gave Mr B the chance to comment on a draft of this decision before I reached a final view in his case. In addition, I took account of documents from the Council about Mr B’s appeal.

Background information

5. In 2020 Mr B and his family moved to the Council’s area. This meant C needed to transfer to a primary school near the family’s new home.
6. Mr B applied for several of the schools closest to home, including School X. But his applications were refused because all the schools were full. Instead the Council offered C a place at another local school (‘School Y’) which was further away than the schools Mr B wanted.
7. Mr B refused the offer on the basis School Y was too far away and travelling there would be difficult for the family. He also appealed about the refusal of a place at School X. But the independent panel turned down Mr B’s appeal, and he then complained to us.

What happened

8. Appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal for a primary school place. In particular, where the appeal is for a place in Year 3 and above, 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.

9. The panel for Mr B’s appeal decided that School X’s admission arrangements were lawful and correctly applied in C’s case. The panel also agreed with School X’s case that taking an extra child would cause prejudice to the School and the pupils already going there.
10. From the documents provided, I do not see any sign of fault in the way the panel considered these two matters in C’s case. I consider that the panel was reasonably entitled to reach the conclusions it did based on the information presented to it at the appeal.
11. Mr B’s case related mainly to the fact that School X is far more accessible than School Y, and that it would be easier for the family to manage the school run to and from there. In this respect Mr B referred to his wife’s health problems which meant she cannot drive. Mr B also mentioned his support for the School X’s values and high standards and his view that it would gain from having C as a pupil. In addition Mr B pointed out that C was without a school place at present.
12. But the panel decided that Mr B’s case for C’s admission did not outweigh the School X’s case on prejudice and it turned down his appeal.

Analysis

13. However, having examined the records from Mr B’s appeal, I am not convinced that there is sign of fault in the way the panel dealt with and decided matters in his case.
14. In particular, I consider the clerk’s notes from the hearing and decision-making, and the panel’s decision letter, show that panel members understood and took suitable account of the information Mr B provided and the case he presented at the hearing. This includes information about his wife’s health problems. It is also evident that panel members explored the issues further with Mr B in their questions on the day.
15. Mr B said he was not given an opportunity to provide more medical evidence. But there is nothing in the clerk’s notes to suggest that Mr B was restricted in what he could say about this matter at the hearing. In addition, I note that the appeal form which Mr B completed said that applicants could attach any relevant medical evidence, so it seems Mr B could have sent in more information at that stage.
16. Mr B felt the panel was biased in favour of School X. But from the records provided I do not see any signs of bias in the way the panel dealt with matters. In particular, from the clerk’s notes I do not see there is evidence that the panel spent a disproportionate time in conversation with School X’s representative, and it appears to me panel members asked relevant and neutral questions to both sides. It also seems Mr B was given a reasonable opportunity to make his case and ask any questions.
17. Mr B also said the panel should not have been made aware about other schools he had appealed for. But I found no reference in the appeal documents to Mr B pursuing other appeals. However I consider it was appropriate for the panel to know about what other schools had been offered to C and if places at other schools were still available.
18. Mr B felt he had made a strong case for C to have a place at 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 this matter, having weighed up the information it received from both sides at the appeal. However I have seen no sign of fault in the appeal process or in the way the panel reached its decision in Mr B’s case which would give us reason to question that decision.
19. In the circumstances I have concluded that we would not be justified in starting an investigation of Mr B’s complaint.

Final decision

20. We do not have grounds to investigate Mr B’s complaint about the appeal panel’s decision to turn down his appeal for a place for his son at School X. This is because there is no sign of fault by the panel in the way it considered and decided Mr B’s case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman