Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s appeal for a school place for his daughter. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, complains that the Council’s school admission appeal panel refused his appeal for a school place for his 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 cannot question whether an independent school admissions appeals panel’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider if there was fault in the way the decision was reached. If we find fault, which calls into question the panel’s decision, we may ask for a new appeal hearing. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr B’s ex-wife applied for a Year 8 school place for their daughter. There were no vacancies in the year group at the school of her choice, so the Council refused the application. Mr B’s ex-wife appealed against the decision.
6. Mr B attended the appeal hearing, which was held by telephone. He argued that the year group was not full, as it had not reached its capacity of 322. The school admission appeal panel refused the appeal. Mr B believes it was at fault in doing so.
7. School admission appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. The panel must consider whether:

• the admission arrangements comply with the law;
• the admission arrangements were properly applied to the case.
   

8. The panel must then consider whether admitting another child would prejudice the education of others.
9. If the panel finds there would be prejudice the panel must then consider each appellant’s individual arguments. If the panel decides the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal.
10. The Ombudsman does not question the merits of decisions properly taken. The panel is entitled to come to its own judgment about the evidence it hears.
11. The clerk’s notes of Mr B’s appeal shows that he was able to make his case that there were spaces available in Year 8. They also show that the school’s representative explained the relationship between the Indicated Admission Number of 322 and the Published Admission Number of 300, and set out the prejudice which would be caused by further admission.
12. Having heard the evidence from Mr B and the Council on behalf of the school, it was for the panel members to make the decision. They decided that further admission would be prejudicial, and that Mr B’s case did not outweigh that prejudice.
13. There is no evidence of fault in the way the panel members reached their decision. Without evidence of fault, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the decision to refuse the appeal, or intervene to substitute an alternative view.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman