Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s 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 has not explained its decision and is unhappy with one of the questions asked during the hearing. Mr X is unhappy the Chair of the panel had considered a previous appeal submitted by Mr X.

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 applied for his daughter (Y) to move to Year 9 in his preferred school (School Z). This is a selective (grammar) school and Y sat the School’s entrance test. The pass mark for the test was 180. Y scored 178. School Z was also full in Year 9 and so it refused Mr X’s application.

The appeals process

6. 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.
7. In appeals for selective schools the panel needs to decide if the appellant’s child meets the necessary academic standard. If they decide this is not the case, then the panel cannot uphold the appeal.
8. If the child meets the academic standard and the panel decides the school can offer a place without it causing ‘prejudice’ to the school, then they must offer a place.
9. If the child meets the academic standard and the panel decides the school cannot offer a place without it causing ‘prejudice’ to the school, they need to balance the appellant’s case against the prejudice to the school.

Mr X’s appeal

10. The clerk’s notes show School Z’s representative presented their case. There was the opportunity to ask questions. Mr X had the chance to present his case. Mr X explained why he wanted Y to attend School Z and why he believed she was of grammar school ability. Mr X’s appeal referred to the problems with Y’s current school and an issue in the selection test. Mr X explained Y’s sister already attended School Z.
11. The clerk’s notes show the panel considered the information it was presented with. The panel decided there was not enough evidence to show Y was of grammar school ability. The panel also decided admitting a further child would cause prejudice. It therefore refused Mr X’s appeal.

Assessment

12. I understand Mr X is unhappy his appeal was unsuccessful. But we are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions which were properly taken.
13. Mr X is unhappy the Chair of the panel had considered a previous appeal for Y. But there is nothing in the School Admission Appeals Code which prevents this.
14. The evidence I have seen shows the panel followed the proper process to consider and decide Mr X’s appeal.
15. Mr X is also unhappy with a question asked by the School’s representative. But asking questions is part of the process. It is then for the panel to decide what weight to give to the information presented. There is also no evidence to show the panel’s decision was unduly influenced by the question asked.
16. Each panel needs to reach a decision based on the information before it. In this case the panel decided not to uphold Mr X’s appeal. This is a decision it was entitled to reach. I have not seen any evidence of fault in how the panel decided Mr X’s appeal. The clerk’s letter explains the decision in enough detail to meet the requirements of the School Admission Appeals Code.

Back to top

Final decision

17. 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