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. Mr X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for his son.

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. Mr X and his family moved into the Council’s area. He applied for a year 4 place for his son (Y) at his preferred school (School Z). Y’s sibling was offered a place at School Z and his other sibling is at a linked nursery. But because there were no year 4 places at School Z, the Council refused Mr X’s application. Mr 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.

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 set out the difficulties it would cause if Y could not attend School Z. These included Y’s mother not being able to work.
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 School Z. The panel refused Mr X’s appeal. 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 when the proper process was followed and decisions 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 considered the information presented and reached a decision it was entitled to.
11. There is not enough evidence the panel did not properly consider the appeal to warrant an investigation.

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