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

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council’s School Admissions Appeal Panel did not properly consider his appeal for a place for his son, Y, at his 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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr 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 according to its oversubscription criteria. Mr X’s application for Y fell under the lowest priority category with distance from the school acting as a tie-breaker. The Council offered the final place at the school to someone under this category who lived closer but Mr X says he will struggle to get Y to his allocated school and that this will impact on him and his ability to undertake additional activities after school.

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. It is clear in this case that the Council provided Mr X with all the relevant information regarding his appeal and that the panel considered Mr X’s appeal properly.
12. The panel was satisfied the admissions arrangements complied with the law and were correctly and impartially applied in Y’s case and that admitting Y to the school would prejudice the provision of efficient education and the efficient use of resources. It considered Mr X’s concerns but did not feel there was anything significant enough to outweigh the prejudice to the school, so it refused the appeal. The Council then wrote to Mr X setting out the decision and the panel’s reasons.
13. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the panel’s decision but I have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way it was reached for us to question it.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman