Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school admissions. Mr X has used his right of appeal and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants. An investigation is not therefore justified.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, is unhappy his daughter was not offered a place at his local secondary school. Mr X has appealed unsuccessfully to an independent panel. Mr X says the panel focussed on the tests in the School Admission Appeals Code. But he contends the admission arrangements of his preferred school are discriminatory and wants them changing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X applied for his daughter to attend her local secondary school. Because there were more applications than places available, the Council used the school’s oversubscription criteria to decide which children it would offer places. The lowest criterion in which children were offered places was for children who lived in the school’s catchment area and attended a local feeder school. While Mr X lives in the school’s catchment area, his daughter did not attend a local feeder school. This meant the Council allocated her a lower oversubscription criterion and did not offer her a place at Mr X’s preferred school. Mr X appealed the decision to an independent appeal panel.
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 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.
9. The panel considered Mr X’s appeal and Mr X had the chance to present his case. The panel decided the school’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. The panel decided admitting further children would cause the school prejudice. The panel decided Mr X’s case was not strong enough to outweigh the prejudice to the school and rejected his appeal.
10. Mr X is unhappy because he says the school’s admission arrangements are discriminatory. He says because his daughter did not attend a feeder school his application was never going to succeed. Mr X wants the admission arrangements changing.
11. In cases involving school admissions and where a parent has appealed, our role is to consider how the panel dealt with the appeal. In this case the panel followed the proper process and applied the correct tests. I have not seen any evidence of fault.
12. A school’s admission arrangements are determined by the admission authority and the process for this is contained in the School Admissions Code. There is a regular process of consultation and determination. Parents have a right to object about admission arrangements to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator. We cannot say what criteria a school’s admission arrangements should contain. I note, however, that attendance at feeder schools is permitted as an oversubscription criterion by the School Admissions Code.
13. We have no powers to say the school’s admission arrangements are discriminatory and we cannot say the Council should change them. We cannot therefore achieve the outcome Mr X wants and so an investigation is not justified. We could not achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we cannot achieve the outcome he wants. There is no worthwhile outcome for Mr X from us investigating his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman