Summary: We do not have grounds to investigate this complaint from a parent about the handling of her appeal regarding a place for her daughter at the secondary school she wanted. This is mainly because there is no sign of fault by the appeal panel.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mrs B, complained that the school admission appeal panel unreasonably rejected her appeal about the refusal of a place for her daughter (‘C’) at her preferred secondary school (‘the School’). Mrs B complained in particular that the panel did not take proper account of her family’s circumstances due to service in the armed forces. In addition Mrs B complained about a data protection breach by the Council because it published notes from her appeal hearing containing personal information on its appeals portal.

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 or there is another body better placed to consider the complaint (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons..(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered the information Mrs B provided with her complaint, her comments when we spoke on the telephone and her response to a draft of this decision. I also took account of documents about Mrs B’s appeal which the Council provided.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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.

7. 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.
8. The panel in Mrs B’s case decided that the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and correctly applied to C’s application. The panel also agreed that taking an extra child would cause prejudice to the School and the children already going there.
9. But from the evidence provided I do not see sign of fault in the way the panel decided these matters. My view is that the panel was reasonably entitled to reach the conclusions it did based on the information presented to it at the appeal.
10. Mrs B felt she had a strong case for C to be given a place at the School. In particular Mrs B referred to the disruptions to family life due to her partner’s active service in the armed forces which prompted their decision to move house nearer to the School so that relatives in the area could provide more support. Mrs B also referred to C’s need for a settled education at the School which is known for its pastoral care for armed forces children.
11. But ultimately it was the panel’s job to reach its own view about the opposing cases, having weighed up the information it received from both sides at the appeal. Having gone through the appeal documents I consider that the clerk’s notes, and the panel’s decision letter, are evidence that the panel properly followed this balancing process and came to a reasoned judgement based on the information presented to it.
12. In particular I am not convinced there is evidence the panel was insufficiently aware, or failed to take enough account, of Mrs B’s family’s circumstances as an armed forces family. In addition I do not see that the panel’s comments about the limited relevance of the armed forces covenant in Mrs B’s case were inappropriate. I also see no indication the panel was prejudiced against Mrs B in this respect, as she had suggested.
13. From the hearing records it also appears the panel gave Mrs B a reasonable opportunity to make her case. I also note the panel further explored the issues with her in their questions on the day and it seems to me those questions were pertinent to the case.
14. As a result I am not convinced that there is sign of fault in the panel’s decision-making, or in any other part of the appeal process, which would give us grounds to question its decision in Mrs B’s case. Therefore I have concluded that we would not be justified in starting an investigation of Mrs B’s complaint about this matter.
15. Mrs B’s other main concern was about the Council’s unauthorised disclosure of personal information in her case. But parliament has set up the ICO to deal with complaints about data protection breaches, including about the disclosure of information in error. As a result the ICO is the body best placed to consider Mrs B’s complaint in this respect. I understand the ICO is already involved regarding the matter, so there is no reason for us to start our own investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We do not have reason to investigate Mrs B’s complaint relating to the handling of her appeal regarding a place for her daughter at her preferred secondary school. This is mainly because there is no sign of fault by the panel.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman