Summary: We do not have reason to investigate this complaint about a school admission appeal panel. This is because there is no sign of fault by the panel in question.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Miss B, complained about the admission appeal panel’s decision to reject her appeal about the refusal of a place for her daughter (‘C’) at her preferred secondary school (‘the School’). In particular Miss B complained the panel did not have enough understanding of C’s autism and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

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 Miss B provided with her complaint. I also gave Miss B a chance to comment on a draft of this decision before I reached a final view in her case. In addition I took account of documents about Miss B’s appeal provided by the Council, which organised the hearing on behalf of the School.

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. In Miss B’s case the panel decided that the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been correctly applied to C. In particular C lived a considerable distance from the School compared to successful applicants. The panel also agreed that taking an additional child would cause prejudice to the School and the children already admitted.
7. From the evidence provided I do not see sign of fault in the way the panel looked at these two issues. I consider the panel was reasonably entitled to reach the decisions it came to based on the information presented to it.
8. Miss B felt she had a strong case for C to be given a place at the School, despite any prejudice this would cause it and other pupils.
9. But at the end of the day it was the panel’s job to reach its own view about this matter, having weighed up the information it received from both sides at the appeal. In this regard, I consider the clerk’s notes and the panel’s decision letter are evidence the panel properly followed this balancing process, took relevant information into account, and reached a reasoned decision in Miss B’s case.
10. Miss B felt the panel lacked sufficient understanding about C’s autism and ADHD. But I see no reason to doubt that the panel took account of what was said at the hearing about C’s special needs and had read the specialist report which Miss B had provided in advance. So I am not convinced we would find grounds to fault the panel for a lack of understanding in these respects.
11. From the information provided I have also seen no suggestion of any other fault in the appeal process. In particular I note that Miss B was given a fair opportunity to make her case, question the School’s case, and answer the panel’s questions.

Final decision

12. We do not have reason to investigate Miss B’s complaint regarding the appeal panel’s decision to turn down her appeal about a place for her daughter at her preferred secondary school. This is because there is no sign of fault in the way the panel handled the case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman