Summary: A parent complained about the refusal of a place for her child at her preferred secondary school and the school admission appeal panel’s rejection of her appeal about this matter. But we will not investigate this complaint as there is no sign of fault in the way the panel considered the appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Miss D, complained that her child (‘E’) was unfairly denied a place at the secondary school (‘the School’) she wanted. She also complained the appeal panel unreasonably refused her appeal about this decision. In particular Miss D felt it was wrong for the School to admit non-Catholic children before Catholics like E. She also felt the panel did not take enough account of the negative impact on her family if E had to go to the school the Council offered.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. School admission appeal panels are tribunals which hear appeals about decisions on applications for school places. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered the information Miss D provided with her complaint and documents supplied by the School and the local authority about her appeal. I also took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

6. Miss D applied for a place for E at the School but was turned down. She was then unsuccessful with her appeal to the school admission appeal panel. We can consider the actions of the appeal panel in Miss D’s case.
7. 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.

8. The panel for Miss D’s appeal decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and correctly applied in E’s case.
9. Miss D felt it was wrong for the School to take non-Catholic children before E who is a baptised Catholic. But in fact the School’s Admissions Policy does give highest priority to children who are baptised Catholics and, anyway, Catholic schools are not restricted from accepting non-Catholic children.
10. The problem in E’s case was that Miss D did not provide the baptism certificate at the time of application, as required by the Admissions Policy. As a result, E’s application was counted under the sixth criterion of the Policy relating to non-Catholic children at a feeder Catholic primary school. But all the places were filled by children who qualified under the first five criteria, which included a criterion for non-Catholics with a sibling at the School.
11. The panel also agreed that accepting another child would cause prejudice to the School and the children already admitted.
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 the decisions it reached, based on the information presented at the hearing.
13. Miss D felt she made a strong case for E to have a place at the School, despite any prejudice this would cause to it and the children already going there. In particular Miss D pointed to her difficult family circumstances which led to her forgetting to provide proof of E’s baptism on time. She also referred to the impact on E’s wellbeing from not getting a place at the School, and the pressing need for E to go there rather than the school allocated as it is much closer to the family home. Miss D said it would not be possible to get all of her children to school on time if E had to attend the offered school.
14. In the circumstances the panel’s decision understandably disappointed Miss D. 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 Miss D’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 before deciding her appeal.
15. In particular, I consider the appeal records show the panel understood and took into the issues Miss D raised in her appeal case. I also note the panel members explored these issues further with her in their questions at the hearing.
16. We may not question a panel’s findings unless there is fault in the way it made its decision which may have affected the result. But I do not see sign of fault which would give us grounds to challenge the panel’s decision about Miss D’s appeal. I also found no suggestion of any other fault in the rest of the appeal process in her case.

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Miss D’s complaint about the refusal of a place for her child at the secondary school she wanted, and the appeal panel’s decision to turn down her appeal about this issue. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the panel dealt with Miss D’s appeal to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman