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 the merits of its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for his daughter. Mr X said the virtual format of the appeal meant he could not properly present his case. Mr X questioned if the panel had properly considered his appeal and said the panel’s decision letter lacked detail. Mr X said the hearing felt rushed and he would like a fresh appeal.

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

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Mr X applied for his daughter (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. Mr X attended the appeal. The clerk’s notes show the School’s representative presented their case. They explained how the School had dealt with Y’s application and why it had not offered her a place. They explained the difficulties offering a place would cause. The panel and parents could ask questions.
8. Mr X presented his case. Mr X explained Y had only recently arrived in the country. Mr X explained how this had affected his application - which Mr X agreed the School had correctly dealt with. Mr X explained why he wanted Y to attend the School. Y’s friend would be attending and there were issues with the school the Council had offered a place at. Mr X provided a letter of support from Y’s primary school. There was a chance for Mr X and the panel to ask questions.
9. 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. 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 wrote to Mr X with the panel’s decision.

Assessment

10. We are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions when the proper process was followed and decisions were properly taken.
11. 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. Mr X is unhappy his appeal was held ‘virtually’. But the School Admission Appeals Code allows such appeals and so we will not criticise this approach.
12. Mr X says the hearing felt rushed. I was not there at the time so can only reach a decision based on the evidence available. The clerk’s notes show all parties had the chance to present their case. I note the Chair asked Mr X if he felt he had been given the chance to present his case. There is not enough evidence to say the appeal was not properly conducted.
13. Mr X also says the clerk’s decision letter did not properly explain the panel’s decision. The letter shows the panel considered the key tests it was required to look at. These include the lawfulness and application of the School’s admission arrangements and the issue of prejudice. I do think the letter could have contained more information about exactly how the panel decided Mr X’s appeal. How decisions were reached is not the same as the decisions themselves.
14. However, the clerk’s notes show the panel’s decision-making process. They show the information considered and how the panel reached the key decisions. 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.
15. So, even if a more detailed letter would have been helpful, the decision reached would have been the same. There is not enough evidence of fault by the panel to warrant an investigation.

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