Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to question the panel’s decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her son (Y). Miss X says she was not given a proper opportunity to present her case and questions if the panel properly considered the information presented.

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. Miss X applied for Y to start Year 7 at her preferred school (School Z) in September 2024. Because there were more applications than places available, the Council used School Z’s oversubscription criteria to decide which children it would offer a place. The Council did not offer Y a place at School Z. It instead offered Y a place at Miss X’s second choice of school. Miss X was unhappy with this as she is a teacher at the school. Miss X appealed the decision not to offer Y a place at School Z.

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. 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.

The appeal

7. The clerk’s notes show that at the first stage of the process, School Z’s representative presented their case. They explained how the school had offered its places. They explained the difficulties offering further places would cause. The panel and parents could ask questions.
8. Miss X presented her case at the second stage of the appeal. Miss X explained why she wanted Y to attend School Z. Miss X explained her concerns about the school the Council had originally offered a place at. Miss X said she had accepted a place at an alternative school, but it would not be a good option for Y. Miss X talked about the issues it would cause if the panel did not off Y a place at School Z.
9. The panel decided School Z’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. The panel decided admitting a further child would cause the school prejudice. The panel decided the evidence put forward in support of Miss X’s appeal was not strong enough to outweigh the prejudice admitting Y would cause School Z. The panel refused the appeal. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.

Assessment

10. We are not a right of further appeal. We cannot question decisions when the proper process was followed, and decisions were properly taken.
11. I was not there at the appeal. The Ombudsman’s decision therefore needs to be based on the evidence available. This includes the clerk’s notes and the decision letter. We could only recommend a fresh appeal if there was enough evidence of fault to call into question the panel’s decision. Unless this test is met, we have no powers to intervene.
12. 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 the appeal. It considered the questions the School Admission Appeals Code requires panels to consider.
13. In correspondence with the Council, Miss X says she could not properly raise concerns about whether School Z’s admission arrangements had been followed and the issue of fraudulent applications. The Council’s response said the issue of parents using false addresses was raised by several parents. The Council said School Z’s representative reassured the panel that such cases had been investigated. The Council said it felt Miss X had a chance to fully present her case.
14. I note from the clerk’s notes the panel decided School Z’s admission arrangements had been properly applied. I have not seen any evidence there was an issue with how the Council dealt with Miss X’s application and that School Z should have offered Y a place. The clerk’s notes show Miss X had the chance to present her case, in line with her written appeal. On the evidence available, we could not say the panel did not give Miss X the chance to present the key points of her case.
15. The clerk’s notes show the panel considered the information presented. It took into account the information from School Z and Miss X. The clerk’s notes and the decision letter refer to the key points in Miss X’s written appeal.
16. I understand Miss X is unhappy her appeal was unsuccessful. But on balance, there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to become involved. We will not therefore investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman