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 by the panel for us to be able to question its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for his son (Y). Mr X said a member of the appeal panel gave him wrong advice about what to do if his appeal was unsuccessful. Mr X is also unhappy his appeal was held virtually and says the result might have been different if the appeal was held in person.

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 Archbishop Beck Catholic College (the School).
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Mr X applied for his son (Y) to attend Year 7 at the School. As there were more applications than places available, the School used its oversubscription criteria to decide which children it would offer places. The School did not offer Y a place. Mr X appealed the decision.

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 the School’s representative presented their case at the first stage of the appeal. They explained how the School had dealt with the applications it had received. The School’s representative talked about how the School had applied its admission arrangements and why it had offered places above its Published Admissions Number (PAN) They explained the difficulties offering further places would cause. The panel and parents could ask questions.
8. The panel decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. The panel decided admitting a further child would cause the School prejudice.
9. Mr X presented his case with Y’s mother. Mr X explained his concerns about the school the Council had offered Y a place at. Mr X explained the School was between his own home and Y’s mother’s address. Mr X explained he was a foster carer and there would be logistical issues if the panel did not offer Y a place. Mr X’s two other children had previously attended the School.
10. The panel considered Mr X’s case and balanced it against the prejudice found in the first part of the hearing. The panel decided the evidence put forward in support of Mr X’s appeal was not strong enough to outweigh the prejudice admitting Y would cause the School. The panel refused the appeal. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.

Assessment

11. I understand Mr X is unhappy the appeal 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. The evidence I have seen shows the panel followed the proper process to consider the appeal.
12. Each panel needs to reach a decision based on the information before it. The panel considered all the information before it and reached a decision it was entitled to. It took into account the information presented by the School and Mr X. This includes the key points Mr X raised in his appeal. The clerk’s notes record the panel’s deliberations and match the decision letter.
13. Mr X says a panel member wrongly told him he should turn down the place offered if his appeal was unsuccessful. Regardless of whether this is the case, it does not affect how the panel considered Mr X’s appeal.
14. Mr X is also unhappy the appeal was held ‘virtually’ rather than face-to-face. But virtual appeals are now permitted under the School Admission Appeals Code. This is not therefore something we can criticise.
15. Based on the evidence I have seen there is not enough evidence of fault in how the panel considered Mr X’s appeal for us to be able to question the panel’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

16. 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