Summary: A parent complained that the school admission appeal process in her son’s case was unfair. However, we do not have grounds to investigate this matter. This is because there is no sign that fault by the appeal panel caused the parent an injustice to warrant our further involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mrs X, complained that the way the school admission appeal panel dealt with her appeal for a place for her son (‘Y’) at her preferred secondary school (‘the School’) was unfair and did not comply with the School Admission Appeals Code (‘the Code’). Mrs X complained in particular that:

• the panel did not understand and failed to take proper account of Y’s disability and its impact;
• the panel took irrelevant considerations into account while ignoring relevant information;
• the panel unreasonably failed to challenge the School’s case and appeared to have pre-judged the appeal;
• the panel asked her inappropriate questions; and
• the appeal decision letter referred to information in the School’s case which was not presented at the hearing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if, for example, we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. We cannot question whether an admission appeal panel’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mrs X provided with her complaint and her comments in response to a draft version of this decision. I also took account of documents about Mrs X’s appeal which were supplied by the Council.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal for a secondary school place. In particular 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 finds 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.

6. The panel for Mrs X’s appeal decided that the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and correctly applied in Y’s case. The panel also agreed that admitting an extra child would cause prejudice to the School and the children already going there.
7. Mrs X disputed that the School had no capacity to take additional pupils. She also questioned the legality of the admission arrangements and the way they were applied to Y’s application.
8. But the panel had to make its own judgement in these respects, and from the evidence provided I am not convinced there is sign of fault in the way it considered these matters in Mrs X’s case. I consider that the panel was reasonably entitled to reach the conclusions it did based on the information presented at the appeal.
9. Mrs X felt the panel should have questioned the School about its appeal case to a greater extent. But I am not convinced we would have grounds to fault the panel for not necessarily doing so. In addition I note that the appeal clerk’s notes from the first stage of the hearing show that parents, including Mrs X, had already challenged the School’s representatives in some depth concerning the School’s case before panel members had their opportunity to ask questions.
10. I consider there is evidence of fault by the panel because it included inaccurate information about the School’s case in its decision letter to Mrs X. The Council said an error was made when the decision letters were drafted and last year’s proforma information about the School’s appeal case was mistakenly entered. However the Council also said the correct data for this year was considered throughout the process in Mrs X’s case.
11. The inclusion of wrong information made the decision letter misleading. But from the records of proceedings at the hearings and the panel’s decision-making it is clear that this year’s appeal case data was presented to the parties at the appeals and that the panel based its decision on the correct information. So although there was fault in the decision letter I do not see this indicated the panel’s actual decision was suspect. Therefore I consider that Mrs X was not caused a significant injustice in this respect.
12. Mrs X complained about how her individual appeal hearing was dealt with. But I consider that the clerk’s notes from the hearing and the decision-making, and the panel’s decision letter, show that panel members understood and took suitable account of the points Mrs X raised in her appeal case, including about Y’s health condition. It is also evident that Mrs X was given a reasonable opportunity to make her case and answer any questions.
13. Mrs X felt many of the questions the panel put to her were inappropriate, particularly in respect of her employment and domestic circumstances. However, from the records of the hearing I consider that panel members asked largely pertinent questions. For instance, I suggest it was relevant for them to ask about work, childcare and travel arrangements in order to better understand the impact on Y if he did not get a place at the School.
14. Mrs X felt she had made a strong case and that there were compelling reasons for Y to be given a place at the School.
15. But ultimately the panel was entitled to reach its own view about the matter, having weighed up the information it received from both sides at the appeal. I consider that the clerk’s notes and the panel’s decision letter are evidence that the panel properly followed this balancing process, and that they provide a suitable account of its reasons for reaching the judgement it made in Mrs X’s case. I do not see the panel gave undue weight to irrelevant factors or failed to take suitable account of relevant information in this process.
16. I am also not convinced there is evidence the panel had pre-determined Mrs X’s appeal or that there were any significant breaches of the Code on its part.
17. There was fault in the drafting of the panel’s decision letter. But I have not seen sign of other fault in the appeal process, or in the panel’s decision-making, which would give us reason to question that decision. Therefore I have concluded that we would not be justified in starting an investigation of Mrs X’s complaint.

Final decision

18. We do not have reason to investigate Mrs X’s complaint about unfairness in the way the appeal panel dealt with her appeal concerning a place for her son at her preferred secondary school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel regarding this matter which caused Mrs X an injustice to warrant our further intervention in her case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman