Summary: We will not investigate Mr 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 Mr X, complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for his daughter (Y). Mr X says the panel wrongly refused his appeal on health and safety grounds. Mr X believes his case outweighed the school’s and the panel should have upheld the appeal.

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 the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Mr X applied for his daughter (Y) to start year 7 in September 2025 at his preferred school (School Z). Because there were more applications than places available, the Council used School Z’s oversubscription criteria to decide which children it would offer places. The Council did not offer Y a place at School Z. It instead offered him a place at an alternative school. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision not to offer Y a place at School Z.
6. In his written appeal Mr X explained School Z is close to home and Y’s grandparents live close by. Mr X explained he attended School Z and Y is the only child in her current school who has not been offered a place at her preferred school. Mr X sent a letter from Y in support of the appeal as well as a letter from Y’s primary school.

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 School Z’s representative presented their case. They explained the difficulties offering a place would cause. The panel and parents could ask questions.
9. Mr X had the chance to present his case and a representative helped with this. The information presented was in line with Mr X’s written appeal. The panel asked questions.
10. The panel considered the information presented. The panel decided School Z’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. They decided there were no errors with how the Council had handled Mr X’s application. The panel decided admitting a further child would cause the school prejudice. The panel decided the evidence put forward in support of Mr X’s appeal was not strong enough to outweigh the prejudice admitting Y would cause School Z. 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.
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. In his complaint to the Ombudsman Mr X says the panel wrongly rejected his appeal on health and safety grounds. But I note School Z’s written case said “We have been warned that by going over that number, particularly by so many, we are placing the students and staff at risk from a Health and Safety perspective.” It also referred to “crowds” of students often leading to “pinch points”. During questions from the panel to School Z’s representative they referred to “congestion when moving [students]” and that “there could be health and safety concerns”.
14. It is for the panel to decide what weight they give to the evidence presented. But given the above we could not criticise the panel for deciding there would be health and safety issues if further children were admitted.
15. Based on the information I have seen there is not enough evidence to suggest the panel did not consider the key issues raised.
16. The panel considered all the information before it and reached a decision it was entitled to. It considered the information presented by School Z and Mr X. This includes the key points raised in the appeal. The clerk’s notes record the panel’s deliberations and match the decision letter.
17. While I understand Mr X is unhappy his 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

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman