Summary: Miss X complains about an unsuccessful appeal for a place at her preferred school for her daughter. We find no fault with the way the panel considered Miss X’s appeal.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about an unsuccessful appeal for a place at her preferred school for her daughter.

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 must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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 spoke with Miss X and considered the information she provided.
6. I considered the information provided by the admissions authority.
7. I sent a draft decision to Miss X and the admissions authority for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

The School Admission Appeals Code (February 2021)

8. Under the Code, the clerk to the appeal panel must provide an independent and impartial service. The clerk’s role includes keeping an accurate record of proceedings. (paragraph 1.11)
9. The Code states appeal panels must follow a 2-stage decision making process for this type of appeal.
• First stage: The panel must consider whether the admission arrangements complied with the law; and were correctly and impartially applied in this case.
• Second stage: The panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for the child’s admission to the school. It must, therefore, take account of the appellant’s reasons for expressing a preference for the school. If the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal. (paragraphs 3.1-3.10)
10. It moves on to the second stage where the panel finds the admission arrangements complied with the law or, if they had not, the child would not have been offered a place anyway. To move to the next stage, the panel must also find the admission of another child would prejudice the provision of efficient education or efficient use of resources.

The School’s Admissions Policy

11. The policy notes places will be offered to students by the school in the following order of priority:
1. Children in public care (looked after children) or a child who was previously looked after.
2. Children who live in the school’s Priority Admission Area (PAA) who have a brother or sister attending from the same address at the date of admission (the sibling rule).
3. Children who live in the school's PAA.
4. Children who live outside the school’s PAA who have a brother or sister attending from the same address at the time of admission (the sibling rule).
5. Children who live outside the school’s PAA.

What happened

12. Miss X applied for a year 7 place for her daughter at her preferred school, School A. This was the only school Miss X applied for. Miss X also has a son who attends School A, and two other children who attend primary school.
13. Miss X does not live within School A’s priority admission area (PAA).
14. There were more applicants than places. School A applied the published admissions policy to decide who should get places. School A did not allocate any places to children who lived outside the school’s PAA who have a brother or sister attending from the same address at the date of admission. The last place went to a child in a higher admissions criteria that Miss X.
15. The Council allocated Miss X’s daughter a place at the nearest school with a vacancy. This was not a school she had expressed a preference for.
16. Miss X appealed the decision. In her appeal, Miss X set out why they wanted their child to attend the school. Miss X noted the allocated school was a Catholic school and so not compatible with the father’s religion.
17. Miss X also highlighted:
• she had severe anxiety and bowl disease, which meant on her bad days she could not get the children to school.
• she had previously lost a child and so did not want her daughter travelling to school on her own and she was unable to get four children to three different schools.
18. In June 2021, the independent appeal panel considered Miss X’s appeal. The panel first considered whether the admission arrangements complied with the law and were correctly and impartially applied. The panel was satisfied the school was full and to admit any further pupils would be prejudicial to the provision of efficient education or the effective use of resources.
19. The panel then considered Miss X’s individual case. Miss X attended the panel virtually and was able to provide her comments on why she wanted her daughter to attend School A.
20. Miss X highlighted:
• the father did not want the daughter to attend a Catholic school,
• the family was not comfortable with the daughter travelling on public transport as they had previously lost a child and as the only daughter, they were very protective of her.
• the family did not want her daughter travelling on her own in winter when it would be dark. Miss X highlighted there was no one else who could accompany her daughter to school.
• she suffered from depression, anxiety, and bowel disease.
21. The panel refused Miss X’s appeal. The panel noted the following:
• Miss X did not live in School A’s PAA.
• It sympathised that Miss X suffered from depression and bowel disease, but that Miss X provided no medical evidence to support this.
• It considered there was another reasonable alternative school within a reasonable distance if the Catholic school was unsuitable.
• There were no exceptional circumstance.
• The admissions arrangements were correctly applied.

Analysis

22. There is evidence the appeal panel followed the two stage decision making process when hearing Miss X’s appeal.
23. The clerk’s notes and record of the appeal show Miss X had the opportunity to participate fully in the appeal and to make her case for why she wanted her daughter to attend School A.
24. The evidence available does not suggest there was any fault in the way the panel considered and made its decision. The records showed the panel appropriately considered the points put forward by Miss X before it made its decision. The panel has also provided a clear rationale for why it refused the appeal.
25. The Ombudsman does not question the merits of a decision properly taken. The panel is entitled to come to its own judgment about the evidence it hears. Therefore, as the panel made its decision properly, the Ombudsman cannot criticise, or intervene to substitute an alternative view.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I find no fault with the way the panel considered Miss X’s appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman