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. Miss X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her niece’s son (Y). Miss X says the appeal papers contained misleading information.

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)
3. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the School.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Y’s mother (Miss Z) applied for him to join reception at Kirby C of E School (the School). Because there were more applications than places available, the School used its oversubscription criteria to decide which children it would offer places. The School did not offer Y a place. The Council offered an alternative school. Miss Z appealed the School’s decision not to offer Y a place.

The appeals process

7. 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

8. The clerk’s notes show the School’s representative presented their case. They explained how applications had been dealt with. They explained the difficulties offering further places would cause. The panel and parents could ask questions.
9. Miss Z presented her case and explained why she wanted a place at the School. She explained how she cared for a family member who lived close to the School. There would be logistical issues if the panel did not offer Y a place. Miss Z explained about the wider family’s situation and how Y already attended the School’s nursery.
10. The panel decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. They decided there were no errors with how Miss Z’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 Miss Z’s appeal was not strong enough to outweigh the prejudice admitting Y would cause the School. The panel refused the appeal. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.

Assessment

11. We are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions when the proper process was followed, and decisions were properly taken by the panel.
12. 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.
13. 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 Miss Z. This includes the key points raised in the appeal. The clerk’s notes record the panel’s deliberations and match the decision letter.
14. As part of her complaint to the Ombudsman Miss X has said the appeal papers prepared by the School quoted from an Ofsted report supposedly from 2023 – which was actually from 2012. The papers also quoted an Ofsted report which was actually from 2003 - but to support the School’s current position.
15. Our role in school admission appeal cases is to normally focus on how the panel considered the appeal. It is for panels to decide what questions they ask and whether to scrutinise the information presented by either party.
16. I do understand Miss X’s concerns and it is clear some of the information presented was out of date. I cannot say though that the panel did not properly consider the information presented during the appeal. There is not enough evidence of fault in the panel’s actions for us to recommend a fresh appeal.
17. The Governing Body of the School is the admission authority, and we can consider its actions in relation to school admissions. The Governing Body was effectively responsible for the information presented on behalf of the School during the appeal. The outdated information was, however, only part of the School’s case. Having looked at all the evidence available I do not consider the panel’s decision to have hinged on it. On balance, even without that information, it seems more likely than not the outcome would have been the same. So, even if we investigated the Governing Body’s actions and found fault, we could not say it had caused a significant injustice. I note in response to a complaint the Governing Body has said it will revise the information. An investigation would not achieve anything more.
18. While I understand Miss X and Miss Z are unhappy the appeal was unsuccessful, there is not enough evidence of fault for us to become involved. We will not therefore investigate.
19. Miss Z will also be able to make an application for a year 1 place for the 2025/26 academic year, and if that was refused, there would be a fresh right of appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman