Summary: We will not investigate this complaint from a parent about the school admission appeal panel’s refusal of her appeal for a school place for her child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Ms X, complained about the appeal panel’s rejection of her appeal for a place for her child (‘Y’) at her preferred school (‘the School’). Ms X felt the panel did not take enough account of her family’s difficult circumstances and the need for all her children to be in the same school.

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 Ms X provided with her complaint and documents from the Council about her and her husband’s appeal. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

5. Appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal for a primary school place in Year 3 or above. First, it must consider whether the admission arrangements comply with the law and if those arrangements were properly applied to the child in question. The panel must then consider whether admitting another child would cause prejudice to the school and other pupils’ education. If it finds there would be prejudice it must then consider the appellant’s arguments.
6. 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.
7. The panel for Mr & Ms X’s appeal decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and correctly applied in Y’s case. It also agreed that accepting another child in Y’s year group would cause prejudice to the School and the children already going there.
8. I consider the panel was reasonably entitled to reach these views based on the information presented to it, and I see no sign of fault in its decision-making.
9. Mr X attended the appeal hearing to present his and Ms X’s case. Mr & Ms X felt they had a strong case to persuade the panel that the School must give Y a place despite any prejudice this may cause. This included information about ill-health in the family and their current difficulties managing the school run to different schools some distance apart.
10. But it was finally the panel’s job to weigh up the information it read and heard from both sides at the appeal 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 Mr & Ms X’s appeal.
11. In particular, I consider the appeal records show the panel understood and took suitable account of the points Mr X presented. I also note panel members further explored Mr & Ms X’s case in their questions to Mr X on the day, and made sure he said all that he wanted to say before the end of the hearing.
12. As a result, I do not see sign of fault in the panel’s organisation of the appeal or its decision-making which would give us grounds to question its decision.

Final decision

13. We will not start an investigation of Ms X’s complaint about the appeal panel’s decision to turn down her appeal for a place for her child at the school she wanted. 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