Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s School Admissions Appeal Panel’s handling of her appeal against the refusal to offer her child a place at her preferred school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains the Council’s School Admissions Appeal Panel did not properly consider her appeal for Year 7 place for her daughter, Y, at her preferred school (School Z).

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)
3. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (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 Miss X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background

6. Miss X applied on-time for a place for Y in Year 7 at School Z from September 2024.
7. School Z had far more applications than spaces available so the Council allocated places at the school according to its oversubscription criteria. Miss X and Y live closer than some of the successful applicants but they fall into a lower priority category because they do not live within School Z’s catchment area. All places were therefore taken by applicants who ranked higher on the school’s oversubscription criteria and there was no space left for Y. Miss X does not consider this is fair and asked the panel to consider Y’s application as a ‘highly exceptional’ case.

The appeals process

8. 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 and impartially applied to the appellant’s application. They also 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.
9. The clerk must ensure an accurate record is taken of the points raised at the hearing, including the proceedings, attendance, voting, and reasons for decisions.

Analysis

10. Our role is to check appeals have been carried out properly. We do not provide a further right of appeal or decide whether a child should be given a place at a school and we cannot question the merits of decisions properly taken. If the 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.
11. The evidence available in this case shows the Council as the admissions authority considered Miss X’s application against the oversubscription criteria and allocated Y a place at the closest available school. When she appealed, the Council sent her a copy of the school’s case explaining how spaces had been allocated, that they were allocated in accordance with their admissions arrangements and that the school was full.
12. Miss X appealed against the Council’s decision on the basis School Z was the best fit for Y and that her circumstances were ‘highly exceptional’. She provided several supporting statements with her appeal setting out why Y should go to School Z over any other school.
13. The panel considered Miss X’s appeal but accepted the argument that admitting Y to the school would prejudice the provision of efficient education and the efficient use of resources. The panel was satisfied the admissions arrangements complied with the law and were correctly and impartially applied in Y’s case. It then considered Miss X’s reasons for wanting Y to attend School Z and balanced these against the prejudice to the school from admitting another pupil. It was not satisfied Y’s circumstances met the ‘highly exceptional’ criteria and found there was nothing significant enough to outweigh the prejudice to the school, so it refused Miss X’s appeal. The Council then wrote to Miss X setting out the decision and the panel’s reasons.
14. Miss X is unhappy with the appeal panel’s decision and says she does not feel the panel fairly considered her appeal. She also believes the decision is inconsistent with other cases where parents have claimed ‘highly exceptional’ reasons and the panel has upheld their appeals.
15. I appreciate Miss X disagrees with the appeal panel’s decision but I have not seen enough evidence of fault for us to question it. The panel properly considered the concerns Miss X put forward and her reasons for wanting Y to attend School Z and reached a decision it was entitled to reach. It directly considered and addressed Miss X’s claim that Y’s case was ‘highly exceptional’ but decided it did not meet the threshold. In these circumstances we cannot recommend the panel reconsiders Miss X’s appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the panel considered Miss X’s appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman