Summary: there was no fault in the way the Independent Appeal Panel made its decision not to admit Mr F’s son to the School. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions made without fault.

The complaint

1. Mr F complains about the Independent Appeal Panel’s decision not to admit his son to the school.
2. In particular, Mr F complains:
• the admission test was unfair because English is not his son’s first language;
• the appeal hearing started early; and
• a member of the Independent Appeal Panel laughed at him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))
4. 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.
5. 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

6. I have considered
• information provided by Mr F;
• 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.
7. I invited Mr F and the Governors to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. The School is a Voluntary Aided School. The School Governors are the Admission Authority and are responsible for organising the Independent Appeal.
9. 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.
10. The Panel must first consider whether the School has correctly applied the admission criteria to the application.
11. The School is a selective school and only applicants who meet the required academic standard are eligible for places. Children sit an entrance test and are ranked by their test scores. Places are offered to children from the top 650 according to the school’s oversubscription criteria (looked after children, musical talent and distance from the school).
12. Mr F’s application was unsuccessful because his son, B, did not pass the entrance test. He did not score in the top 650 and so he was not eligible for a place.
13. The Panel was satisfied the School had correctly applied the admission criteria to Mr F’s application. There is no fault in the Panel’s decision.
14. Mr F appealed because he does not consider the entrance test gave an accurate reflection of his son’s aptitude. English is his second language and Mr F believes he was disadvantaged by the test. He would have preferred the test to be in Arabic.
15. The School explained that English is a second language for a significant proportion of its pupils. It said the mathematics test was designed to assess a pupil’s mathematical abilities without disadvantaging those for whom English was a second language. B did not pass the mathematics test.
16. The Panel considered evidence from B’s primary school. His reports showed he was a hard working pupil who was making good progress and working towards the expected standards for a child of his age.
17. The Panel concluded B was not of the required standard for admission to the school. There is no fault in the Panel’s decision.
18. Mr F complained the appeal, which was held by Zoom because of the pandemic, started earlier than planned. The minutes confirm Mr F’s appeal started 20 minutes ahead of schedule. Mr F was present from the beginning, and the Clerk’s notes record his discussions with the Panel. Mr F also submitted a comprehensive written case. I do not consider the early start caused Mr F an injustice.
19. Mr F complained a member of the Appeal Panel laughed at him. I was not present, so I cannot comment. I found no evidence in the minutes of the hearing or the Panel’s deliberations to suggest the Panel was discourteous or prejudiced against Mr F. I do not intend to investigate the matter further.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I completed my investigation. There was no fault in the Panel’s decision not to admit Mr F’s son to the School. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions made without fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman