Summary: We have no reason to investigate this complaint from a parent about the way the school admission appeal panel dealt with his appeal for a place for his son at his preferred primary school. This is because there is no sign of fault by the panel.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr B, complained that the school admission appeal panel unreasonably turned down his appeal about the refusal of a place for his son (‘C’) at his preferred primary school (‘the School’). In particular Mr B felt the panel had failed to consider the facts or C’s welfare.

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 Mr B provided with his complaint. In addition, I gave Mr B an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision before I reached a final view in his case. I also took account of documents about Mr B’s appeal which were provided by the Council.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal for a primary school place. In particular, in cases involving admission to Years 3 and above, 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 Mr B’s appeal decided that the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and correctly applied in C’s case. The panel also agreed that accepting an additional child would cause prejudice to the School and the pupils attending it. In C’s case the relevant year group of 60 was already full.
7. But from the evidence provided I do not see sign of fault in the way the panel decided these matters in respect of Mr B’s appeal. I consider that the panel was reasonably entitled to reach the conclusions it did based on the information presented to it at the appeal.
8. Mr B believed he had a compelling case for C to be admitted to the School. This was mainly because the School is close to the new family home, whereas getting to the school C had been offered involves a long journey by foot, a fact Mr B felt he had been misled about.
9. But ultimately it was the panel’s job to reach its own view, having weighed up the information it received from both sides at the appeal. Having gone through the appeal documents I consider that the clerk’s notes, and the panel’s decision letter, are evidence that the panel properly followed this balancing process and came to a reasoned judgement based on the information presented to it. I do not see that in doing so the panel failed to take account of relevant facts or the points Mr B made in his appeal case.
10. In the circumstances I am not convinced there is sign of fault in the panel’s decision-making, or in any other part of the appeal process, which would give us grounds to question its decision in Mr B’s case. Therefore I consider that we would not be justified in starting an investigation of Mr B’s complaint.

Final decision

11. We do not have reason to investigate Mr B’s complaint about the way the appeal panel dealt with his appeal concerning a place at his preferred primary school for his son. This is because there is no sign of fault by the panel in his case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman