Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her daughter (Y). Mrs X says the panel failed to properly consider her daughter’s wellbeing. Mrs X also said the panel’s decision letter was inaccurate.

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 De La Salle RC School (the School).
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Mrs X applied for Y to join year 8 at the School. Y had been bullied at primary school and had been home educated. Y now wanted to attend the School which was close to home. The School’s Published Admission Number (PAN) is 150 and the school already had more than 150 children in year 8. The School refused Mrs X’s application and she 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.

Mrs X’s appeal

7. The clerk’s notes show the School’s representative presented their case at the first stage of the appeal. They explained the difficulties offering a place would cause. The panel and parents could ask questions.
8. Mrs X presented her case. Mrs X explained why she wanted Y to attend the School. It was close to her home and there would be logistical issues if the panel did not offer a place. Mrs X now worked close to the School and could walk with Y. Mrs X explained Y had not been able to attend the School offered as the children who bullied her attended. Mrs X was worried about Y’s mental well-being.
9. The panel decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. The panel decided there were no issues with the processing of Mrs X’s application. The panel decided admitting a further child would cause the School prejudice.
10. The panel then considered Mrs X’s case and balanced it against the prejudice it had found admitting a further child would cause. The panel decided the evidence put forward in support of Mrs X’s appeal was not strong enough to outweigh the prejudice admitting Y would cause the School. The panel refused the appeal. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.

Assessment

11. I understand Mrs X is unhappy the appeal was unsuccessful. But we are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions when the proper process was followed, and decisions were properly taken.
12. The evidence I have seen shows the panel followed the proper process to consider Mrs X’s appeal.
13. The clerk’s note show the School and Mrs X presented their cases. The panel asked questions about the issues at the heart of Mrs X’s case.
14. Each panel needs to reach a decision based on the information presented. Mrs X says the panel did not properly consider Y’s mental wellbeing. But the notes and letter refer to this. I am satisfied the panel took this into account.
15. Mrs X also says the decision letter wrongly referred to Y being supervised at home by her brother and father. Mrs X also said the letter wrongly referred to Y having an online Maths and English tutor. Unfortunately, the clerk’s notes do not allow me to say with certainty what was discussed regarding these two points.
16. But these were only two points discussed during the appeal. The clerk’s letter lists 16 points which formed Mrs X’s appeal. These two points were also not central to the panel’s decision making. So, even if there was some confusion about these two points, it is not enough to undermine the panel’s decision.
17. The evidence I have seen shows the panel considered the information before it and reached a decision it was entitled to. It is for the panel to decide what weight it gives to information from each party.
18. Based on the evidence I have seen there is not enough evidence of fault in how the panel considered Mrs X’s appeal for us to be able to question its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman