Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s 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. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her son. Mrs X says the panel failed to properly consider her case, asked inappropriate questions, and may have considered irrelevant matters.

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 Ermysted’s Grammar School (the School).
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. The School is a selective / grammar school. It therefore uses the results of a selection test and its oversubscription criteria to decide which children it will offer places. Mrs X’s son (Y) sat the selection test for a place in September 2024. To be deemed suitable for a grammar school place, candidates needed to score 192.5. Y scored 186.5. This meant he was not deemed suitable for a grammar school place and the School refused Mrs X’s application. Mrs X appealed the decision not to offer Y a place.

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 them 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.

Mrs X’s appeal

10. In her written appeal, Mrs X explained Y missed the original test due to health problems. Y sat the test on an alternative date but was still suffering with symptoms from the illness which meant he missed the original test. Y had said he wanted to sit the test, but Mrs X said his performance could have been affected. Mrs X questioned why another candidate had been able to sit the test in December. Mrs X wanted to know if Y should have been offered this opportunity.
11. Mrs X also explained there was a delay on the way to the test which meant they arrived slightly late. Again, this may have affected Y’s performance. Mrs X explained Y was performing well academically and the family were planning to move closer to the school. Mrs X supplied written information in support of her appeal.
12. Mrs X attended Y’s appeal which was held virtually. The clerk’s notes show that during the appeal, the School’s representative presented their case. They explained how places had been offered. The panel and parents could ask questions.
13. Mrs X presented her case and expanded on the written information she had sent. The panel asked questions. These were about matters including the School’s testing arrangements, Y’s academic performance, including SATs, and why Mrs X wanted Y to attend the School. In response to the panel’s questions, the School’s representative explained an extra child had been tested in December as they had moved into the area.
14. The panel considered Y’s case. The panel decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. The panel decided there was not enough evidence to show Y was of grammar school ability. The panel refused the appeal and the clerk’s letter explained the decision.

Assessment

15. I understand Mrs X is unhappy her appeal was unsuccessful. But we are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions which were properly taken.
16. The evidence I have seen shows the panel followed the proper process to consider and decide Mrs X’s appeal. The panel considered the relevant tests set out in the School Admission Appeals Code.
17. The evidence shows Mrs X had the chance to present her case in line with the written information she provided.
18. Each panel needs to reach a decision based on the information before it. The evidence I have seen shows the panel considered all the information presented. It is for the panel to decide the weight it gives to each piece of evidence. The panel looked at information Mrs X sent before her appeal and the information she presented during the hearing.
19. The panel decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. Mrs X says the panel asked inappropriate questions, but I have seen no evidence of this. The panel has a wide remit to explore the issues it considers relevant.
20. The panel balanced the evidence presented. In summary, the panel refused Mrs X’s appeal because it decided there was not enough evidence to show Y should be deemed suitable for a grammar school education. This is a decision the panel was entitled to take. I have seen no evidence the panel considered irrelevant information in deciding Mrs X’s appeal. The clerk’s decision letter is in line with the notes taken during the hearing.
21. Based on the evidence available there is not enough evidence of fault in how the panel considered Mrs X’s appeal to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

22. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman