Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel’s failure to provide his child with a place at School Y. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused him to lose out on a school place.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, says the Council’s schools admissions Appeal Panel did not properly consider his appeal for a place for his child, Z

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 a 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)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council who provided the notes from the Appeal Panel.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background information

6. Mr X applied for his child Z, to have a place at School Y in year five immediately. Z is attending a school over four miles from the family home. It takes over an hour to get to school. Z has a sibling at another school.
7. The Council refused the application as year five at School Y was full. Mr X appealed for a place at School Y. He said:
• The journey to the current school was tiring and meant Z missed out on other activities.
• The family has no car and no access to public funds.
• Z is classified by the Council as a child in need.
8. An independent appeal panel considered his appeal in May 2022. A Council social worker and interpreter accompanied him. The Council told the appeal panel that another school could offer places to both Z and their sibling. This school is within statutory walking distance for Z.
9. The appeal panel decided not to award a place. Mr X disagreed and complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

The appeal panel and our role

10. Independent appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. The panel must consider whether the:
• admission arrangements comply with the law;
• admission arrangements were properly applied to the case; and
• admission of another child would prejudice the education of others.
11. 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. This means it can say a school is full but decide a child’s case is so compelling that it is more important to admit that child than prevent the effects to a school by having one more child.
12. We cannot question the decision if it has been properly taken. If the Panel has been properly informed, and used the correct procedure, then it is entitled to come to its own judgment about the evidence it hears.
13. The appeal panel’s detailed decision letter records the reasons Mr X gave the appeal panel for wanting a place.
14. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Appeal Panel’s decision based on the information I have seen which supports the appeal panel’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

15. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault which caused Mr X the injustice he alleges.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman