Summary: there is no fault which calls the outcome of Mrs M’s school admission appeal into question.

The complaint

1. Mrs M complains following her unsuccessful appeal for a place for her son, B, at a secondary school. She says that delays meant other appeals were heard first which caused prejudice to B's appeal. Mrs M requests B is admitted to the school.

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. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered information provided by Mrs M and information provided by the Council. I invited Mrs M and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. The school is a community school. The Council is the Admission Authority and is responsible for admissions and appeals.
5. Mrs M applied for a place for her son. Her application and subsequent appeal were unsuccessful.
6. Mrs M complained to the Ombudsman. She said:
• her appeal was heard two days outside the statutory timescale;
• she was only given five days notice to prepare her appeal;
• she did not receive the Appeal Panel’s decision until three weeks after the hearing;
• the decision letter said she could complaint to the Education Funding Agency (EFA). Mrs M wrote to the EFA at the address in the letter, but her correspondence was returned by the Post Office. She then telephoned the Department for Education and was advised to complain to us not the EFA.
7. Mrs M says that “it is due to this maladministration that other children’s appeals have been heard ahead of B’s, causing him prejudice and tainting the statutory process.” Mrs M requests B is admitted to the school.

Consideration

8. The School Admission Appeals Code 2012 issued by the Department for Education sets out the process and timescales the Independent Appeal Panel must follow when considering Mrs M’s appeal.
9. The Council advised parents it was unable to give ten school days’ notice for all appeals and invited them to request a different date if they objected. Mrs M did not object to the short notice.
10. There were multiple appeals for the school. The Council confirmed all appeals were heard by the same Panel over five days: 8, 9, 10,14 and 16 June.
11. B’s appeal was heard on 16 June with all the other on-time appeals for the school. I do not, therefore, uphold Mrs M’s complaint that other children’s appeals were heard ahead of B’s, causing him prejudice.
12. In any event, the Council confirmed no appeals were successful.
13. Mrs M is right the Council has not met all of the timescales in the Code. However, this has not caused injustice. It did not prejudice B’s appeal.
14. Mrs M is also correct that the decision letter contained incorrect information about how to complain. However, while I acknowledge the frustration this caused, Mrs M was able to complain to us in the end. The delay in complaining to us has not caused injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I have ended my investigation. There is no fault which calls the outcome of the appeal into question.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman