Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of admission to the complainant’s preferred school for her son. 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 Mrs D, says that the IAP:
• Did not consider her grounds for appeal properly;
• Did not read her submission in full;
• Did not take into account the fact that her son has siblings at the school;
• Did not consider her argument that the School had successfully managed classes of more than 30 previously; and
• Disadvantaged her by telling her at the hearing that she only had 30 minutes, and wasted some of that time in asking her questions.

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 information provided by Mrs D and by the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. Mrs D has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs D says that her appeal was not properly considered by the IAP and that the Council’s decision to refuse a place for her son was unreasonable. I have looked at the Clerk’s notes and decision making papers. They show that the IAP had read carefully Mrs D’s submission and noted its points. The Panel discussed whether the decision in this case was reasonable, and, although sympathetic to Mrs D’s position, decided that her case was not strong enough to meet the very high threshold of an unreasonable decision.
7. The Panel also noted that although the child’s siblings attend the School, the family does not live in the Priority Admissions Area and the application was therefore correctly considered under a lower oversubscription category.
8. Additionally, the IAP was not at fault in not taking into consideration any previous class numbers. This is because the limit of 30 children in an infant class is legally prescribed. The IAP can only place a child in such a class where the admission arrangements were not properly administered or where the decision to refuse a place was unreasonable.
9. Finally, although Mrs D says that she was disadvantaged but being told at the hearing that she could only have 30 minutes, this information was the letter inviting her to the appeal. The letter also told her that the Panel would ask questions, as is required in the School Admission Appeals Code.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will 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