North Huddersfield Trust School (24 012 815)
Category : Education > School admissions
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 09 Nov 2024
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to be able to question its decision.
The complaint
- Mr X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for his son (Y).
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant and North Huddersfield Trust School (NHTS / the School).
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
What I found
Background
- Mr X and Y’s mother (Mrs X) applied for Y to join year 9 at NHTS. Y had previously attended the School but left so Mrs X could care for a relative overseas. Because the School was full in year 9 it refused the application. Mr and Mrs X appealed the decision.
The appeals process
- 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.
The appeal
- The clerk’s notes show NHTS’s representative presented their case. They explained how the School had dealt with the application. They explained the difficulties offering further places would cause. The panel and parents could ask questions.
- Mr and Mrs X presented their case and explained why they wanted a place at NHTS. They explained how Y’s friends attended the School and they wanted him to return. They had applied unsuccessfully to other nearby schools.
- The panel decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. They decided there were no errors with how the application had been handled. The panel decided admitting a further child would cause the school prejudice. The panel decided the evidence put forward in support of Y’s appeal was not strong enough to outweigh the prejudice admitting Y would cause NHTS. The panel refused the appeal. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.
Assessment
- We are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions when the proper process was followed, and decisions were properly taken.
- Each panel needs to reach a decision based on the information before it. The evidence I have seen shows the panel followed the proper process to consider the appeal.
- The panel considered all the information before it and reached a decision it was entitled to. It considered the information presented by the School and Mr and Mrs X. This includes the key points raised in the appeal. The clerk’s notes record the panel’s deliberations and match the decision letter.
- In his complaint to the Ombudsman, Mr X said NHTS did not provide statistics about the number of students in its classes. But the papers sent before the appeal include various pieces of information. These include the number of children in year 9. The papers meet the requirements of the School Admission Appeals Code.
- While I understand Mr X is unhappy the appeal was unsuccessful, there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to become involved. We will not therefore investigate.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman