Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for his daughter. Mr X sad the panel did not properly consider the information he presented.

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.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Mr X’s daughter (Y) is due to start secondary school in September 2022. Mr X listed several schools on his application. Because there were more applications than places available at Mr X’s preferred schools, the Council used the relevant oversubscription criteria to decide which children it would offer places. It did not offer Y a place at School Z, one of Mr X’s preferred schools, and he appealed the decision.

The appeals process

6. Independent appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. They need to consider if the school’s admission arrangements comply with the law, and if they were properly applied to the appellant’s application. They need to decide if admitting a further child would “prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources”. If they think it would, they need to consider if an appellant’s arguments outweigh the prejudice to the school.

Mr X’s appeal

7. The clerk’s notes show the Council and Mr X had the chance to present their cases. In his appeal, Mr X explained why he wanted Y to attend School Z. He explained the difficulties it would cause if Y could not attend School Z. Mr X explained why he did not want Y to attend the school the Council had offered her a place at.
8. The panel considered information about School Z. The panel decided its admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. The panel decided admitting a further child would cause prejudice. The panel decided the evidence put forward in support of Mr X’s appeal was not strong enough to outweigh the prejudice admitting a further child would cause the school. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.

Assessment

9. I understand Mr X is unhappy his appeal was unsuccessful. But we are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions which were properly taken.
10. Each panel needs to reach a decision based on the information before it. The evidence I have seen shows the panel followed the proper process to consider and decide Mr X’s appeal. The panel reached a decision it was entitled to. I have not seen any evidence the panel did not properly consider the appeal or the information Mr X sent.
11. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the panel decided Mr X’s appeal for the Ombudsman to become involved. An investigation is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman