Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council is at fault in refusing her appeal for a school place for her 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 Miss B, complains that the Council is at fault in refusing her appeal for a school place for her 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.
5. The complainant has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered her comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss B applied for a school place for her daughter for transfer to secondary school in September 2022. The Council applied its admission policy and allocated a place for Miss B’s daughter at the school she had indicated was her first preference. Miss B then asked for a place at the school she had originally said was her third preference. All the places available at this school had been allocated according to the admission policy, so the Council did not award Miss B’s daughter a place.
7. Miss B appealed against the Council’s decision. She made a written appeal and attended an online appeal hearing to make her case in person. In support of the appeal, Miss B explained why the school was suitable for her daughter and why she did not want her to attend the school the Council had offered.
8. Having considered the arguments made by Miss B and the Council's representative, the school admission appeal panel decided to refuse the appeal. Miss B believes this decision is unreasonable. She says the panel failed to properly take her daughter’s circumstances into account. She does not accept the school’s expressed view that it cannot admit further pupils.
9. School admission appeals 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.

10. The panel must then consider whether admitting another child would prejudice the education of others. 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.
11. 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.
12. The clerk's notes of Miss B's appeal hearing show she was able to make her case and that the panel considered it. The evidence the Council provided shows why it believed further admission to the school would prejudice the delivery of education, and Miss B had the opportunity to question it.
13. It was for the panel to decide how much weight to give to the evidence. Miss B argues that the clerk’s notes misrepresent what she said and cast her in a bad light. But that does not call the panel’s decision into question. There is no evidence of fault in the way the panel made its decision.
14. Without evidence of fault, we cannot criticise the decision the panel made, or intervene to substitute an alternative view. There are therefore no grounds to investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman