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).

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 Malling School (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. In his written appeal, Mr X explained his family would be moving to within 0.5 miles of the School. Y’s grandmother lived close to the school and would help with childcare. The journey to the school offered would be difficult and there would be other logistical issues. Mr X explained Y was academically able and had only just missed out on passing the 11 plus. Contracts had already been exchanged on the property the family would be moving to. Mr X sent written information in support of his appeal.
8. 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 provided up to date information on the number of places it had offered. They explained the difficulties offering further places would cause. The panel and parents could ask questions.
9. Mr X presented his case at the second stage of the process. Mr X expanded on the written information he had supplied. The panel asked further questions.
10. At the decision-making stage the panel considered the information it had seen and heard. The panel decided admitting further children would cause prejudice. The panel considered Mr X’s case and balanced it against the prejudice admitting a further child would cause the School. The panel decided the evidence put forward in support of Mr X’s appeal was not strong enough and 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 presented 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. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, Mr X said the panel’s decision letter wrongly stated the planned change of address led to an increased journey time to the allocated school. Mr X says the journey time will actually be less from the new address – but still too long. I note the panel’s letter refers to “the travel difficulties in getting to the allocated…School. These are due to the family moving house over the summer period.” This part of the letter could have been worded more clearly. But the general issue of the travel time to the allocated school from the family’s new address was central to Mr X’s appeal. It is clear the panel understood this and took it into account. There is not enough evidence the panel failed to properly consider this issue, and which warrants a fresh appeal.
14. 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

15. 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