Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Independent Admissions Appeals Panel conducted the appeal for a school place for his child. We ended our investigation as Mr X’s child was offered a place at the school therefore there was no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about an unsuccessful school admissions appeal for a school place for his child, Y at the Jewish Community Secondary School (the School). He complained that the Independent Admissions Appeals Panel (the Panel) did not conduct a fair appeal. He said this impacted the appeal outcome and caused distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; 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

4. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered evidence provided by the School.
5. Mr X and the School had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. The governing body is the admissions authority for the School. Mr X applied for a year eight school place for Y at the School which was refused.
7. Mr appealed the refusal. The appeal was heard and refused in February 2025.
8. Mr X complained to us in March 2025 and said that the appeal was conducted in an unfair manner.
9. During the course of our investigation the School told us it had now offered Y a school place under the “sibling” criteria.

Analysis

10. As a publicly funded body, we must be careful how we use our resources. If I investigated and found fault I would recommend another appeal. As Y has now been offered a place at the School, there is insufficient personal injustice remaining to warrant an investigation. I see no good reason to justify continuing my investigation into Mr X’s complaint as there is nothing more I could achieve by further investigating this complaint.

Back to top

Decision

11. We ended our investigation as there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by investigating this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman