Summary: We will not investigate this complaint from a parent that a school admission appeal hearing in his child’s case was not independent. This is because there is no sign of fault in the appeal panel’s consideration of the appeal which caused the parent an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr C, complained there was a conflict of interest in the school admission appeal hearing for his child (‘D’) because the School’s Headteacher (Mr ‘E’) was present and able to influence the panel. Mr C also said Mr E and a School governor spent time alone with panel during the hearing. Additionally Mr C said the School offered a place to another child with the same priority as D before the appeal hearings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We cannot question whether an independent school admission appeal 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr C provided with his complaint and information the School and the local authority supplied about his appeal. I also took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

5. Parliament has issued the School Admission Appeals Code 2022 (‘the Code’) which imposes mandatory requirements and provides other statutory guidance about what admission appeal panels do.
6. One Code requirement is that the admission authority (the School in this case) must provide a presenting officer to present its case and answer questions at the hearing. But there is no restriction on the Headteacher of a school performing this role. Therefore there is no conflict of interest in Mr E’s participation in Mr C’s appeal as he suggests.
7. The Code also says that appeal hearings must be heard in the presence of all panel members and parties. One party must not be left alone with the panel in the absence of the other party.
8. The local authority, which organised the appeals on behalf of the School, responded to Mr C’s allegation the panel and Mr E spent time alone together during his hearing. The authority said the only time this happened was during an adjournment in the proceedings for the panel to consider additional evidence Mr C provided on the day. It said the Headteacher had photocopied Mr C’s documents and only went into the room to hand copies to the panel and clerk.
9. On that basis it appears the Code was technically breached when Mr E was in the room with the panel. But I understand this contact was brief and inconsequential. Also I have not seen any other evidence to suggest Mr E had any untoward dealings with panel members or exerted any undue influence over the panel’s decision-making. Therefore I do not see we have reason to pursue Mr C’s complaint about this matter any further.
10. Appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal for a secondary school place. In particular the panel must consider whether:

• the admission arrangements comply with the law;
• the admission arrangements were properly applied to the child in question.

It must then consider whether admitting another child would prejudice the education of others. If the panel finds there would be prejudice it must then consider the appellant’s arguments. If the panel decides the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal.

11. The panel for Mr C’s appeal decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and correctly applied in D’s case. D’s application was considered under the twelfth criterion of the School’s oversubscription criteria. But all the places were filled by children with a higher priority. The panel also agreed that taking an extra child would cause prejudice to the School and the children already going there.
12. But from the appeal documents provided I do not see sign of fault in the way the panel decided these matters. I consider the panel was reasonably entitled to reach these decisions, based on the information presented at the hearing.
13. Mr C felt he had a compelling case for D to have a place at the School, despite any prejudice this would cause to it and the children already admitted. Mr C referred in particular to D’s health and wellbeing needs, a family association with the School and the unsuitability of the alternative school offered by the local authority. In the circumstances Mr C was understandably disappointed by the panel’s decision.
14. But ultimately it was the panel’s job to weigh up the information received from both sides at the hearing and to reach its own view about the opposing appeal cases. In Mr C’s case I consider the appeal clerk’s notes from the hearing and decision-making, and the panel’s decision letter, are evidence the panel properly followed this balancing process in deciding the appeal.
15. In particular, I consider the appeal records show the panel understood and took account of the issues Mr C put forward in his appeal case. I also note that panel members explored these issues further with Mr C in their questions on the day.
16. We may not question a panel’s decision unless there is fault in the way it was made which may have affected the result. But I do not see evidence of fault which would give us grounds to challenge the panel’s decision in Mr C’s case.
17. Mr C also alleged that the School offered a place to another child with similar circumstances to D before the appeal hearings.
18. I do not have any information about the particular offer in question, although I note Mr E explained at the hearing about the extra places granted since the first round of offers. However I have seen no evidence to suggest the School wrongly made the offer. But even if it did I do not see that we would be likely to find that this caused Mr C any direct injustice. In particular, since D ranked under the twelfth criterion for admission it seems highly unlikely D would have been in line to receive the offer instead of the other child.

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the way the school admission appeal panel dealt with his appeal for a place for his child at his preferred secondary school. There is not enough evidence of fault by the panel that caused Mr C an injustice to warrant our further involvement in his case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman