Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel, and so we cannot question the merits of its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place for his daughter. Mr X questions if the Council and panel have properly considered the distance from his home to his preferred school.

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 X applied for a Year 7 place at his preferred schools for his daughter (Y). Mr X submitted his application after the closing date of 31 October 2021. Mr X’s application was therefore late. The Council did not offer Y a place at any of Mr X’s preferred schools. Mr X appealed the decision not to offer Y a place at School Z.
6. In his written appeal Mr X referred to the difficulties it would cause if Y was not offered a place at School Z. Mr X wanted Y to be able to travel to school on a single bus. If Y did not attend School Z, then it would make it hard for Mr X to return to work.
7. Independent appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. They need to consider if the school’s admission arrangements comply with the law, and if they were properly applied to the appellant’s application. They need to decide if admitting a further child would “prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources”. If they think it would, they need to consider if an appellant’s arguments outweigh the prejudice to the school.
8. The clerk’s notes from the appeal show the Council’s representative explained why it had not offered Y a place at School Z. The notes show what problems the school thought would be caused if the Council offered Y a place.
9. In the appeal the distances from Mr X’s home to School Z were discussed. The last child offered a place lived 1.756 miles from the school. The Council confirmed Mr X lives 1.534 miles from the school. One document incorrectly showed the distance from Mr X’s home to School Z to be 1.761 miles. But because Mr X’s application was late, it was considered after all on-time applicants – including those who live a greater distance from the school. The Council’s representative confirmed if Mr X had applied on time that Y would have been offered a place.
10. The appeal papers and clerk’s notes show that:
• The Council and Mr X were given the opportunity to present their case.
• The panel decided the school’s admission arrangements complied with the law and had been properly applied to Mr X’s application.
• The panel decided admitting further children would cause prejudice.
• The panel decided the evidence put forward by Mr X was not strong enough to outweigh the prejudice admitting a further child would cause the school.
11. The clerk’s letter to Mr X explained the panel’s decision. It is in line with the clerk’s notes.
12. We are not an appeal body and we cannot criticise decisions taken without fault. The evidence I have seen shows the panel followed the proper process to consider Mr X’s appeal. The distance from Mr X’s home to School Z was clarified and the panel understood the implications of his application being late. It was for the panel to decide what weight should be given to each piece of evidence. The decision to refuse Mr X’s appeal is one the panel was entitled to take.
13. I understand Mr X is disappointed with the panel’s decision. But there is not enough evidence of fault in how the panel considered Mr X’s appeal for us to become involved.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the panel considered Mr X’s appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman