Summary: A parent complained about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to refuse her appeal for a school place. But we will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mrs B, complained about the appeal panel’s rejection of her appeal for a place for her child (‘C’) at the junior school (‘the School’) she wanted. In particular Mrs B felt the panel wrongly decided the School did not have classroom capacity to take another child. She also felt it had not taken enough account of the difficulty she would have in taking C to and from the school allocated by the Council.

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 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)

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mrs B provided with her complaint and documents from the Council about her appeal. I also took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

5. Appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal for a junior school place. First, it must consider whether the admission arrangements comply with the law and if those arrangements were properly applied to the child in question.
6. The panel must then consider whether admitting another child would prejudice the education of others. If it finds there would be prejudice it must then consider the appellant’s arguments.
7. This is the balancing stage of the appeal process. The panel must decide one way or the other. If it decides the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal. If not, it will refuse the appeal.
8. Mr & Mrs B attended the appeal hearing. The panel in their case decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and correctly applied in C’s case. It also agreed that accepting another child in C’s year group would cause prejudice to the School and the children already there.
9. I consider the panel was reasonably entitled to reach those views based on the information presented to it, and I see no sign of fault in its decision-making.
10. Mr & Mrs B felt they had a strong case for the School to admit C despite any prejudice this may cause to other pupils’ education.
11. But it was the panel’s job to weigh up the information it read and heard from both sides and to reach its own view about the opposing cases. I consider the appeal clerk’s notes from the hearing and decision-making, and the panel’s decision letter, are good evidence the panel followed this balancing process properly in deciding Mrs B’s appeal.
12. In particular, I consider the appeal records show the panel understood and took suitable account of the points Mr & Mrs B presented. I also note panel members further explored Mr & Mrs B’s case in their questions at the hearing.
13. In the circumstances I do not see sign of fault in the panel’s decision-making which would justify us calling its decision into question.

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the appeal panel’s decision to turn down her appeal for a place for her child at her preferred school. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the panel considered the appeal to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman