Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s 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. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her granddaughter (Y). Mrs X complains on behalf of her daughter, Miss Z, who is Y’s mother.

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 Archbishop Beck Catholic College (Archbishop Beck / the School).
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Miss Z applied for her daughter (Y) to start year 7 in September 2025. Miss Z wanted Y to attend Archbishop Beck. When Miss Z received Y’s offer of a school place the Council had offered her a place at another school. It said this was Miss Z’s first preference and Archbishop Beck was her second choice. Miss Z contends she listed Archbishop Beck as her first preference. Miss Z appealed the decision not to offer Y a place.

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 representatives presented their case. They explained the difficulties offering a place would cause. The panel and parents could ask questions.
8. Mrs X represented Miss Z at the appeal. She explained why Miss Z wanted Y to attend Archbishop Beck. She explained Y was a baptised Catholic and her friends would be attending the School. There would be logistical issue if the panel did not offer a place. Miss Z was adamant she had listed Archbishop Beck as her first preference. Miss Z had added a second preference as it was the only way the system would allow her to submit her application.
9. The panel did not identify any issues with the School’s admission arrangements or how they had been applied. The panel looked at a copy of Miss Z’s application and Archbishop Beck was the second preference. The panel noted other applications only included one preference. The panel decided admitting a further child would cause the school prejudice. The panel decided the evidence put forward in support of Y’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.
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. The panel considered all the information before it and reached a decision it was entitled to. It considered the information submitted by Miss Z and presented by the School and Mrs X. This includes the key points raised in the appeal. I have considered Miss Z’s original application, and it does show Archbishop Beck as her second preference. The clerk’s notes record the panel’s deliberations and match the decision letter.
13. While I understand Mrs X and Miss Z are unhappy the 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

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