Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel’s failure to provide his child with a place at School Y. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused them to lose out on a school place.

The complaint

1. Mr X, says the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel did not properly consider his appeal for a place for his child, Z, at School 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 a 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)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and the Schools Admissions Appeals Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background information

6. Mr X applied for his child Z to have a place at School Y starting in year seven in September 2024. There were more applicants than places. The Council applied the admission policy and allocated places according to its published admission criteria. The last place went to an applicant in the same criteria as Mr X, who lived closer to the school then he does. Mr X’s applications for four other schools were also unsuccessful. The Council in line with its policy allocated a place at the nearest school with places. This is under two and a half miles from their home.
7. Mr X appealed for a place. His reasons for appealing included:
• They did not like the allocated school.
• Z would be a good addition to the school.
8. Mr Z’s appeal included that they “ firmly believe ‘Z’ is a deserving candidate who will thrive academically and contribute positively to any of the five schools we applied to.”
9. An Independent Appeal Panel considered his appeal in May 2024. Mr X did not attend. The Appeal Panel decided not to award a place.
10. Mr X complained about the decision. He said:
• The appeal panel should not have been told School Y was their 5th preference;
• The Council allocated places to children who live outside the School’s catchment;
• The Council allocated places to children who live further away than him; and,
• People who placed School Y as their 5th preference have obtained places.

The appeal panel and our role

11. Independent Appeal Panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. The panel must consider whether the:
• admission arrangements comply with the law;
• admission arrangements were properly applied to the case; and
• admission of another child would prejudice the education of others.
12. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. If the Appeal Panel has been properly informed, and used the correct procedure, then it is entitled to come to its own judgment about the evidence it hears.
13. The Appeal Panel decision letter shows the Appeal Panel actively considered the case.
14. The School Admissions Appeals Code sets out the appeals process and what the Appeal Panel should take into account when deciding an appeal. It says at 3.8 that in deciding whether to offer a place it has to consider:

“what that school can offer that the allocated or other schools cannot”.

15. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Appeal Panel’s decision to consider Mr X had said in his appeal four other schools could meet Z’s needs. This is a directly relevant factor for the appeal panel. Mr X believes the Appeal Panel should not know School Y was their fifth preference. There are no reasons it should not.
16. The school admissions criteria for School Y does not have catchment areas.
17. Mr X has provided no evidence of people who live further away and have a place in the same year as Z.
18. People may have got places who had School Y as their fifth preference, if they fall into a higher criteria or live closer to School Y than Mr X.
19. Based on the information I have seen which supports the Appeal Panel’s decision, it is unlikely our investigation could find fault in the Appeal Panel’s decision which has caused them to lose out on a place.

Back to top

Final decision

20. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find any fault directly caused Mr X the injustice he alleges.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman