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 daughter (Y).

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 Corpus Christi Catholic High School (the School / Corpus Christi).
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Mrs X applied for Y to start secondary school in September 2025. Mrs X then asked the Council to change her first preference to Corpus Christi. The Council refused because the deadline for changes had passed. The Council offered Y a school place at the normal time. Unhappy with the place offered Mrs X asked the Council for a place at Corpus Christi. Because the School had offered all its places it refused Mrs X’s application. Mrs X appealed the 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. 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.
8. Mrs X presented her case and explained why she wanted a place at the School. She explained it had a good anti-bullying policy and there were issues with the school the Council had offered Y a place at. Mrs X supplied medical information in support of her appeal. The panel asked further questions.
9. The panel decided the School’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 the School. 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 by the panel.
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 Mrs X’s appeal.
12. 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 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.
13. While I understand Mrs X is unhappy the appeal was unsuccessful, there is not enough evidence of fault for us to become involved. We will not therefore investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. 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