Summary: A parent complained about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to turn down her appeal for a place for her son at her preferred primary school. But we have no reason to investigate this matter because there is no sign of fault by the panel.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mrs X, complained that the school admission appeal panel unfairly rejected her appeal about the refusal of a place for her son (‘Y’) at her preferred primary school (‘the School’). In particular Mrs X felt the School could accommodate Y, and that he would suffer a greater harm from being denied a place than the School would from admitting him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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. (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 when we spoke on the telephone. I also gave Mrs X an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. In addition I took account of documents about Mrs X’s appeal which were provided by the County Council.

My assessment

5. Appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal for a primary school place. In particular, in cases regarding admission to Years 3 to 6, 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 were correctly applied in Y’s case. The panel also agreed that taking an extra child would cause prejudice to the School and the children already going there. There were already 32 pupils in the class in question although the normal admission number was 30.
7. But I am not convinced there is sign of fault in the way the panel considered these matters in Mrs X’s case. My view is that the panel was reasonably entitled to reach the conclusions it did based on the information presented at the appeal.
8. Mrs X felt she had a strong case for Y to be given a place at the School because he already has a sibling there and it is very close to her home.
9. But at the end of the day 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 had appropriate reasons for reaching the judgement it made in Mrs X’s case.
10. I have not seen sign of other fault in the appeal process or 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 investigating Mrs X’s complaint.

Final decision

11. We do not have reason to investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the appeal panel’s decision to turn down her appeal regarding a place for her son at the School. This is because there is no sign of fault by the panel.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman