Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel’s decision not to provide his child with a place at School Z. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused them to lose out on a school place, and any remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel did not properly consider his appeal for a place for his child, Y, at school Z.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way a school admissions appeals panel made its decision. If there was no fault in how the panel made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. 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, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating;
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background information

6. Mr X applied for his child, Y, to attend School Z starting in year three in September 2024. The year group in that school was full, and his application was declined. The Council, in line with its policy, allocated a place at the nearest school with places.
7. Mr X appealed for a place at School Z. His reasons for appealing included:
• individual extenuating circumstances which cause greater difficulty for Mr X compared with an average family if Y did not attend School Z;
• Y attended a linked school; and
• the alternative named school was unsuitable.
8. An Independent Appeal Panel considered his appeal in June 2024. The Appeal Panel decided not to award a place.
9. Mr X complained about the decision. He said the Independent Appeal Panel:
• delayed sending the decision letter;
• failed to consider all relevant factors in the appeal, including his personal circumstances;
• did not have sufficient information to determine the class size appropriately, and therefore the decision that to admit another child would prejudice the school was flawed; and
• applied the wrong weighting to the impact of other children who have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan (and children on the SEN register who may at some stage have an EHC Plan) when considering the prejudice admitting Y to School Z would have.

The appeal panel and our role

10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Based on the information I have seen, which supports the Appeal Panel’s decision, it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would find fault in the process which has caused Mr X and Y to lose out on a school place. The Appeal Panel actively considered the arguments Mr X had made, but concluded admitting Y to the school would cause prejudice. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.
13. The Appeal Panel’s decision letter shows it actively considered the case. The appeals code says the decision letter should be sent within five school days unless there is a good reason. The decision letter was sent 12 school days after the appeal panel. While this is the case, the delay was not a significant amount of time. Therefore, the injustice caused by the delay is not significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman, and we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find any fault which directly caused Mr X the injustice he alleges, and any remaining injustice is insufficient to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman