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. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. Mr X says the appeal panel was not independent as required by the School Admission Appeals Code. Mr X also says he was not given enough time to present his case.

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

What I found

Background

5. Mr X’s grandson (Y) was due to start secondary school in September 2023. Y’s mother (Ms Z) applied for a place but did not receive an offer for her preferred school (School B). Ms Z appealed the decision not to offer Y a place at School B. Mr X supported Ms Z at the appeal.

The appeals process

6. The School Admission Appeals Code (the Code) sets out the law for school admission appeals. Independent appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal.
7. The Code says admission authorities must ensure panel members are independent and must retain their independence for the duration of their service. Paragraph 1.7 of the Code sets out the groups of people who cannot be members of an appeal panel: These include:
• members of the local authority which is the admission authority or in whose area the school in question is located;
• members or former members of the school’s governing body;
• people employed by the local authority or governing body of the school, other than as a teaching assistant;
• any person who has, or at any time has had, any connection with the local authority, school, or their employees, which might reasonably be taken to raise doubt about their ability to act impartially;
• any person who has not attended training required by the school’s admission authority.
8. The Code says each side must be given the opportunity to state their case without unreasonable interruption.
9. The appeal panel needs 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 and Ms Z’s appeal

10. The clerk’s notes show School B’s representative presented their case. They explained how places had been offered and the problems it would cause if other children were admitted. The panel and appellants could ask questions. Mr X asked various questions about School B’s case and questioned some of the information presented. Ms Z presented her case and explained why she wanted Y to attend School B. Ms Z explained the problems with transport to the school the Council had offered a place. Ms Z explained the problems it would cause if Y could not attend School B. The panel asked questions.
11. The panel decided School B’s 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 Y’s appeal was not strong enough to outweigh the prejudice admitting Y would cause School B. The panel refused the appeal. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.

Assessment

12. I understand Mr X is unhappy the appeal for Y 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.
13. Mr X says the panel was not independent because its members had sat on multiple appeals, often together, and with the same clerk. But there is nothing in the Code which prevents this. Councils will also arrange hundreds of appeals each year. A different panel for each set of appeals would not be possible. There has not been a breach of the Code which we could say represents fault. None of the prohibited groups were members of the panel, nor is there any evidence the panel did not remain independent.
14. Mr X is also unhappy because he says he did not have time to present his case. He says Ms Z only had limited time to say why she wanted Y to attend School B.
15. I was not at the appeal, so the Ombudsman needs to reach a decision on the available evidence. This includes the original written appeal, clerk’s notes, School B’s case, and the clerk’s decision letter. I also asked the Council about this point. It said that 30 minutes was allocated to the appeal, and it lasted for 39 minutes.
16. The Code says that each side must be given the opportunity to present their case without unreasonable interruption. But it does not follow that appellants can present their case without limit. There will often be multiple appeals the panel needs to consider. It is therefore reasonable for there to be a limit on how long each appeal lasts. An appeal which lasted 39 minutes is not so short we could say it was unreasonably interrupted.
17. Based on the information I have seen, there is not enough evidence of fault for us to question the administration of the appeal. Each party was given a reasonable opportunity to present their case and to ask questions. There was also the opportunity to send information before the appeal. The appellants were advised in advance of how long had been scheduled for the appeal.
18. 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 the appeal.
19. The panel considered all the information before it and reached a decision it was entitled to. While I know Mr X disagrees with the panel’s decision, that is not evidence of fault. I have not seen enough evidence the panel did not properly consider the appeal to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

20. 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