Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s School Admissions Appeal Panel’s handling of his appeal against the refusal to offer his child a place at their preferred school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council’s School Admissions Appeal Panel’s decision to refuse his appeal for a Year 10 place for his child Y at School Z was unfair.

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)
3. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background

6. Mr X applied for a place for Y in Year 10 at School Z from September 2023. This was because he and his family were due to move to the area from elsewhere.
7. School Z already has more pupils moving to Year 10 than its published admissions numbers allow so the Council refused Mr X’s application.

The appeals process

8. 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 and impartially applied to the appellant’s application. They also 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.
9. The clerk must ensure an accurate record is taken of the points raised at the hearing, including the proceedings, attendance, voting, and reasons for decisions.

Analysis

10. Our role is to check appeals have been carried out properly. We do not provide a further right of appeal or decide whether a child should be given a place at a school and we cannot question the merits of decisions properly taken. If the panel has been properly informed, and used the correct procedure, then it is entitled to come to its own judgment about the evidence it hears.
11. The evidence shows the Council’s reasons for refusing Mr X’s application. It sent him a copy of the school’s case explaining the reasons for refusal and setting out why it had decided not to admit Y to the school.
12. Mr X appealed against the Council’s decision as he did not agree with it. He raised concerns about Y’s education, travel to school, his wife’s medical conditions and issues with travelling on public transport.
13. The panel considered Mr X’s appeal but accepted the argument that admitting Y to the school would prejudice the provision of efficient education and the efficient use of resources. The panel was satisfied the admissions arrangements complied with the law and were correctly and impartially applied in Y’s case. It then considered MrX’s reasons for wanting Y to attend School Z and balanced these against the prejudice to the school from admitting another pupil. It found there was nothing significant enough to outweigh the prejudice to the school so it refused Mr X’s appeal. The Council then wrote to Mr X setting out the decision and the panel’s reasons.
14. Mr X is unhappy with the panel’s decision and says it is unfair. But I have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the panel reached the decision to warrant further investigation. The panel properly considered the concerns Mr X put forward and his reasons for wanting Y to attend School Z and I have seen no basis for us to question its judgement.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the panel considered Mr X’s appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman