Summary: A parent complained about the way the school admission appeal panel dealt with her appeal for a place for her son at her preferred secondary school. But we will not investigate the complaint because the Council has now agreed to hold a fresh appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mrs B, complained about the school admission appeal panel which considered her appeal for a place for her son (‘C’) at her preferred secondary school (‘the School’). Mrs B complained in particular that:

• the panel did not take proper account of the medical information she provided;

• the Council’s presenting officer could not answer relevant questions about the School, so the panel was wrong to agree that the Council had established its case that taking an extra child would prejudice the education of others; and

• the panel was biased against her.

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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mrs B and her representative provided about her complaint, and their further comments in response to my proposal to close her case in view of the Council’s offer. In addition I took account of documents about the appeal which were provided by the Council.

Back to top

My assessment

4. An examination of the records from Mrs B’s appeal revealed signs of fault in the panel’s consideration of the case.
5. In particular, it seemed the panel had misdirected itself about its capacity to consider the medical and social issues which were central to Mrs B’s appeal case, on the basis that its members were not medically trained. As a result it was not clear the panel had properly addressed the evidence from health professionals, which Mrs B provided in support of her appeal case, in reaching its decision. In the circumstances it appeared the panel had not fully complied with the requirements of paragraph 3.8 of the School Admission Appeals Code which says a panel: “must take into account the appellant’s case for the child to be admitted to the school.”
6. In addition, part of a panel’s role is to consider whether admitting another child would prejudice the education of others. If a panel finds there would be prejudice it must then consider the appellant’s arguments and, if it decides the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal.
7. The panel in Mrs B’s appeal decided that taking an extra child would cause prejudice to the School and the children already at the School. However there were also doubts about whether the panel had properly considered this matter. In particular Mrs B’s representative asked a series of relevant questions about the School’s case on prejudice which the presenting officer was unable to answer. But the panel did not intervene to seek clarification about these matters.
8. In the circumstances I considered there were grounds for us to carry out a full investigation in Mrs B’s case and a likelihood we would that fault had affected its decision. But so as to avoid the possibility of delay in going through this process the Council was asked to consider agreeing to a fresh appeal in order to remedy Mrs B’s complaint at an early stage.
9. The Council subsequently agreed to a new appeal heard by a different panel. I consider that this is a satisfactory way of addressing Mrs B’s complaint. Therefore we have no reason to pursue her case any further.

Final decision

10. We do not have reason to investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the way the appeal panel considered her appeal about the refusal of a place for her son at her preferred secondary school. This is because the Council has now taken satisfactory action to deal with the complaint by agreeing to hold a fresh appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman