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 daughter. Mr X says the panel failed to properly consider how his daughter would get to school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s roles 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 and his family have moved into the Council’s area from overseas. Mr X applied for a year 10 place at School Z for his daughter (Y). This school is close to the family’s new home, but is not the catchment school.
6. Because there were no places available in year 10 at School Z, the Council refused Mr X’s application. Mr X appealed the decision not to offer Y a place at School Z. The Council offered Y a place at an alternative school.

The appeals process

7. 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

8. The clerk’s notes show the Council presented their case. The panel and the appellants asked questions. Mr X presented his case. This included why he wanted Y to attend School Z. He explained Y’s sibling had been offered a place at the school. The family were looking for a primary school place for their youngest child. There would be logistical issues if Y did not attend School Z.
9. 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 Y would cause School Z. The panel refused Mr X’s appeal. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.

Assessment

10. 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.
11. 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 Mr X’s appeal.
12. During the appeal, transport to school for Y was discussed at length. Mr X clearly has concerns about the journey to the school the Council has offered Y a place at. But the papers show the Council would provide Y with transport to the school offered. It was for the panel to decide how much it would explore this issue and the weight it would attach to it.
13. The evidence I have seen shows the panel considered all the information before it and reached a decision it was entitled to. I have not seen enough evidence the panel did not properly consider the appeal to warrant an investigation.
14. If Mr X wants to challenge the home to school transport offered, then he can do this through the Council’s home to school transport appeals process

Back to top

Final decision

15. 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