Summary: We will not investigate Ms 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. Ms X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her son (Y). She questions if the panel properly considered her appeal and says cases similar to her own were successful.

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 Purbrook Park School (the School).
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Ms X applied for her son (Y) to start year 7 at Purbrook Park 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 and the Council offered an alternative school. Ms X appealed the School’s 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 representative presented their case. They explained the difficulties offering further places would cause. The panel and parents could ask questions.
8. Ms X presented her case and explained why she wanted a place at the School. She explained Y’s father could not help with the school run due to work commitments. Ms X could drop Y at the School. Other family members attend the School and their parents could help with collecting Y. Ms X explained Y was a good student. It would leave him vulnerable if he had to attend the school offered as there would be nobody to collect him. Y could not attend Ms X’s preferred school as there were logistical issues.
9. The panel did not identify any issues with the School’s admission arrangements or how they had been applied. The panel decided admitting a further child would cause the School prejudice. The panel decided the evidence put forward in support of Ms 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.
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 presented by the School and Ms 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. Ms X is unhappy some other appeals were successful. But that is not evidence of fault; panels need to look at each case on their respective merits. Ms X also says the panel’s letter seemed to suggest issues around collection at the end of the day were mainly due to after-school activities Y attended. It is clear logistical issues in general were at the heart of the appeal and there is not enough evidence of fault in the panel’s consideration of this point.
14. While I understand Ms X is unhappy her 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

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

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman