Summary: We will not investigate this complaint from a parent about a school admission appeal panel. The parent complained about the panel’s decision to refuse her appeal concerning a place for her daughter at her preferred school. But there is insufficient evidence of fault by the panel to warrant our further involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Miss X, complained that the school admission appeal panel unreasonably turned down her appeal for a place for her daughter (‘Y’) at her preferred secondary school (‘the School’). In particular Miss X complained that the panel was wrong in concluding the School could not cope with another admission, and it did not properly consider her case for Y to be given a place on health and welfare grounds.

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 X provided with her complaint. I also took account of documents from the Council about Miss X’s appeal.

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. The panel which heard Miss X’s appeal decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and correctly applied in Y’s case. The panel also agreed that taking an additional child would cause prejudice to the School and the children already there.
7. However from the evidence provided I do not see sign of fault in the way the panel looked at these two matters, and I consider it was reasonably entitled to reach the decisions it came to based on the information presented.
8. Miss X felt she had made a very strong case for Y to be given a place at the School, despite any prejudice this would cause to it and to other pupils.
9. But ultimately 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 respect, I consider the clerk’s notes from the hearing 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 Y’s case.
10. In particular, I see from the clerk’s notes that panel members explored the issues in Miss X’s case with her in their questions on the day, and I consider the notes from the panel’s decision-making show members understood and took account of that case in reaching its decision. I see no evidence to suggest the panel failed to consider the health and welfare concerns raised by Miss X.
11. In addition, from the information provided I found no indication of any other fault in the appeal process or that the proceedings were not in line with statutory guidance. In particular, I note that Miss X was given a reasonable opportunity to make her case, question the School’s case, and answer the panel’s questions.

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the appeal panel’s decision to refuse her appeal regarding her daughter’s admission to her preferred secondary school. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the panel considered the case to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman