Summary: there is no fault in the Independent Appeal Panel’s decision not to admit Ms M’s son to the School. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.

The complaint

1. Ms M complains about the Independent Appeal Panel’s decision not to admit her son to the school. She does not believe the Panel has taken account of her family’s circumstances.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. The Ombudsman cannot question a school admission appeal panel’s decision 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))
3. We check the Independent Appeal Panel followed the Code of Practice issued by the Department for Education and the hearing was fair.  We do this by examining the notes taken by the Clerk during the hearing.  We do not have the power to overturn the Panel’s decision, and we cannot give a child a place at the school. If we find fault, which calls the panel’s decision into question, we may ask for a new appeal hearing.
4. If we are satisfied with a panel’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered
• information provided by Ms M;
• information provided by the school, including all the information submitted to the Appeal Panel, and the notes taken by the Clerk during the appeal; and
• the School Admissions Appeals Code 2012.
6. I invited Ms M and the Governors to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. The School is a Voluntary Aided School. The School Governors are the Admission Authority and are responsible for organising the Independent Appeal.
8. The School Admission Appeals Code 2012 issued by the Department for Education sets out the process the Independent Appeal Panel must follow when considering an appeal.
9. The Panel must first consider whether the School has correctly applied the admission criteria to the application. Ms M’s application was unsuccessful because there were more applications than places at the school and all the places were filled by children who had more priority according to the school’s oversubscription criteria.
10. Ms M’s application was in category E – other children. However, all the places were filled by children in categories A to D.
11. The Panel was satisfied the admission criteria were correctly applied. There is no fault in the Panel’s decision.
12. The Panel must consider whether the school can accept any more pupils without disadvantaging those already given places. This is known as the case for prejudice. The school submitted a detailed written case to explain why it could not accept more pupils. Parents had an opportunity to submit questions about the school’s case.
13. The Panel decided the school was full and could not admit any more pupils. There is no fault in the Panel’s decision.
14. The Panel must then consider Ms M’s case for her son to be admitted to the school. This is known as the balancing stage where the prejudice to Ms M’s son if he is not given a place is balanced against the prejudice to the school if he is.
15. The Clerk’s notes and the appeal papers clearly record Ms M’s case and her discussions with the Panel at the hearing. I have not repeated the details here to ensure her anonymity. Ms M also submitted written evidence to the Panel. After hearing from Ms M and considering her evidence, the Panel decided the prejudice to her son did not outweigh the prejudice to the school. There is no fault in the Panel’s decision. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I have completed my investigation. There is no fault in the Panel’s decision not to admit Ms M’s son to the school into question. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman