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

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, says the School’s Admissions Appeal Panel did not properly consider her appeal for a place for her 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 Miss X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background information

6. Miss X applied on time, for her child Z to have a place at this school in reception from September 2022. It is not her nearest school. Z attended the attached pre school.
7. The School allocated the 38 places according to its admission criteria. All the places went to applicants who were closer to the School than Miss X. The Council allocated Z a place at School Q. This is her nearest school.
8. Miss X appealed for a place at the School. She said:
• Z had had a heath issue when they started at the pre school which had settled down. She felt this could reoccur if they moved schools.
• The School is convenient for both parents and grandparents.
• They wanted a religious school.
• Her own health had been affected by not getting a place at a school of their choice.
9. An Independent Appeal Panel considered her appeal via Teams in July 2022.
10. The Appeal Panel decided not to award a place.
11. Miss X disagreed and complained to the Ombudsman. She feels her case has not been heard.

Analysis

The appeal panel and our role

12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. The Appeal Panel’s detailed decision letter records the reasons Miss X gave the appeal panel for wanting a place. The Clerks Notes show the Appeal Panel actively considered the reasons she gave.
16. 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

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman