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

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her daughter. She said the panel failed to properly consider her appeal. Ms X also complained about the Presenting Officer interrupting her.

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

My assessment

Background

5. Ms X and her family have returned from living overseas. She applied for a year 5 place for her daughter (Y) at her preferred school (School Z). Because there were no places available, the Council refused Ms X’s application. Ms X appealed the decision not to offer Y a place.

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.

Ms X’s appeal

7. The clerk’s notes show the Council and Ms X had the chance to present their cases. In her appeal, Ms X explained why she wanted Y to attend School Z. Ms X explained she wanted Y to be able to walk to school. She explained Y’s elder sister had been offered a secondary school close to School Z. Ms X supplied supporting information from Y’s primary school. She explained about some of the difficulties the family had recently faced and provided detailed information about Y’s character and personality.
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 Ms X’s appeal was not strong enough to outweigh the prejudice admitting a further child would cause School Z. The panel refused Ms X’s appeal. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.

Assessment

9. I understand Ms X is unhappy her appeal was unsuccessful. But we are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions when the proper process was followed and decisions were properly taken.
10. The evidence I have seen shows the panel followed the proper process to consider and decide Ms X’s appeal.
11. Ms X says the Presenting Officer interrupted her. The notes show there was a discussion about school places already offered to Y and that a place had not yet been accepted. I was not there at the time, so it is difficult for me to comment on this discussion.
12. But the evidence I have seen shows Ms X had the chance to present her case. The panel considered what she said and the detailed written evidence she supplied. Each panel needs to reach a decision based on the information before it. The clerk’s letter shows the panel took into account all the information it was presented with. In refusing Ms X’s appeal, the panel reached a decision it was entitled to.
13. I have not seen enough evidence the panel did not properly consider Ms X’s appeal to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman