Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of admission to the complainant’s preferred school for her daughter. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Independent Appeal Panel (IAP) made its decision, and the alleged injustice would not warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mrs X, says that the admissions procedure for her daughter was badly handled, the Fair Access Protocol (FAP) should have been used, and that the IAP hearing the appeal was biased and did not apply the law properly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X, including her response to my draft decision.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X moved into the Council’s area and made in-year applications for her 3 daughters. Two were placed at her preferred school, but the year group for her oldest daughter, D, was full. D was offered a place at School B.
7. Transport was offered to School B to assist the family, but Mrs X says that the transport was not appropriate as D suffered from travel sickness.
8. Mrs X appealed against the decision on the grounds that the FAP should have been used, and that the transport offered was not appropriate. The IAP did not uphold the appeal however.
9. Mrs S complains that the whole process was badly handled and that the IAP was biased as it found against her. She also says the IAP did not know the law regarding the Protocol.
10. We will not investigate the complaint. This is because we cannot question the merits of a decision that has been properly taken. In this case, the IAP considered all of the information regarding the case, including D’s travel sickness and the conditions for using the FAP, and decided the Council was correct to consider the FAP was not applicable. I have seen no evidence to suggest the IAP was at fault.
11. Although I appreciate it was inconvenient for Mrs X to be offered two different schools for her daughters, the situation lasted for a very short period of time, and is now resolved as D has moved on to a secondary school. The alleged injustice is therefore not on-going, and would also be insufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because I have seen no fault in the way the IAP made its decision, and the alleged injustice would not warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman