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. Mr X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for his daughter (Y). Mr X questions if the panel properly considered his appeal and says an ineffective interpreting service affected the outcome.

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 the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Mr X and his family moved into the Council’s area from overseas. Mr X applied for his daughter (Y) and her younger sibling (Z) to attend the local school (School B). The Council offered Z a place at School B. The Council could not offer Y a place in year 5 because the school was already over its Published Admission Number (PAN). The Council refused Mr X’s application for Y. Mr X appealed the Council’s 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.

The appeal

7. Mr X attended the appeal with his wife and a council appointed interpreter. The clerk’s notes show School B’s representative presented their case. They explained how the school had dealt with Mr X’s application. They explained the difficulties offering further places would cause. They explained the school was already over its PAN. The panel and parents could ask questions.
8. Y’s parents presented their case. The information presented included:
• They were new to the country.
• Y’s younger sibling would attend School B and there were logistical issues with having children at different schools.
• Y’s mother did not drive.
• Not offering Y a place at School B had caused her emotional distress.
• A medical condition limited Y’s mother’s ability to take her children long distances – such as the school offered which was just under three miles away.
• The school was already over its PAN and could therefore admit another child.
9. The panel decided School B’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. They decided there were no errors with how Mr 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 Mr X’s appeal was not strong enough to outweigh the prejudice admitting Y would cause School B. The panel refused the appeal. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.

Assessment

10. We are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions when the proper process was followed, and decisions were properly taken.
11. 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.
12. Mr X has questioned if the panel properly considered his appeal given the school was already over its PAN. But this does not mean the appeal was more likely to succeed. A school’s PAN is based on its capacity, and as that number is exceeded, the likelihood of further admissions causing prejudice increases. The panel decided admitting a further child would cause prejudice. That is a decision the panel was entitled to reach.
13. Mr X has also said the interpreter used at times struggled to translate what his wife wanted to present and that he had to step in. Mr X says at times the interpreter failed to properly present their case.
14. I was not there at the time so need to make a decision based on the clerk’s notes, Mr X’s written appeal, and the decision letter sent following the hearing. Based on the information I have seen the panel considered the issues at the heart of Mr X’s complaint. These included the points listed in paragraph 9 and the impact on Y of not attending School B.
15. The panel also considered the information presented by School B and balanced this against Mr X’s case. It decided the school’s case outweighed Mr X’s and refused the appeal. The panel’s letter following Mr X’s appeal explained its decision.
16. While I understand Mr X is unhappy his 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

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman