Wokingham Borough Council (24 013 134)

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

  1. Mrs X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her son (Y). Mrs X says the appeal panel’s decision letter contained errors and omissions. Mrs X questions if the panel properly considered her appeal.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

  1. Mrs X moved address and applied for Y to join year 5 at her preferred school (School Z). Because School Z was full in year 5 it refused Mrs X’s application. Mrs X appealed the decision.

The appeals process

  1. 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

  1. The clerk’s notes show School Z’s representative presented their case. They explained how the school had dealt with Mrs X’s application. They explained the difficulties offering further places would cause. The panel and parents could ask questions.
  2. Mrs X presented her case and explained why she wanted a place at School Z. Mrs X explained there were logistical issues caused by Y continuing to attend his previous school. Mrs X explained she works full-time. Mrs X talked about the problems they would face if the panel did not offer Y a place. Mrs X also raised concerns about how quickly her application had been dealt with.
  3. The panel decided School Z’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. They decided there were no errors with how Mrs X’s 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 Mrs X’s appeal was not strong enough to outweigh the prejudice admitting Y would cause School Z. The panel refused the appeal. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.

Assessment

  1. We are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions when the proper process was followed, and decisions were properly taken.
  2. 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.
  3. The panel considered all the information before it and reached a decision it was entitled to. It considered the information presented by School Z 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.
  4. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, Mrs X said the panel’s decision letter wrongly recorded the distance from her new home to Y’s previous school. However, the distance of 1.2 miles in the letter matches the distance in the appeal papers and Mrs X’s own appeal. This is a straight-line distance so the measurement to walk or drive to the school may of course be further.
  5. Mrs X also said her daughter’s name was spelt wrongly in the decision letter. But a typing mistake by the clerk does not mean the panel’s consideration of the appeal was flawed.
  6. Finally, Mrs X said the panel’s letter did not mention a health condition which affects Y and was relevant to her appeal. But Mrs X did not include this in her original written appeal, and the clerk did not record it in her notes. We could not therefore say its omission from the letter was fault affecting the outcome of the appeal.
  7. While I understand Mrs X is unhappy her appeal was unsuccessful, there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to become involved. We will not therefore investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. 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

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings