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 son (Y). Mr X questions if the panel properly considered his case which included information about Y’s living arrangements.

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. Y’s mother (Ms X) applied for him to start year 7 at her preferred school (School Z). Ms X and Mr X are separated, but Y spends equal time at each address. Ms X applied for a place from her own address. Because School Z was oversubscribed the Council used its oversubscription criteria to decide which children it would offer places. The last child offered a place lived 1.5038 miles away, their address was in the school’s Geographical Priority Area (GPA) and they did not have a sibling at the school. Ms X’s address is also in the GPA but is 2.3192 miles away. The Council therefore refused Ms X’s application and did not offer Y a place. Mr X and Ms X appealed the Council’s 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 the difficulties offering a place would cause. The panel and parents could ask questions.
8. Mr X and Ms X presented their case which included:
• Y has a step sibling due to Mr X’s new marriage who attends School Z. Mr X and Ms X were confident this would have given Y a higher oversubscription criterion meaning he would have been offered a place.
• Children who live close to their homes attend School Z and both addresses are in the GPA.
• There would be logistical issues if the panel did not offer a place.
• Y would feel comfortable in School Z.
9. The panel did not identify any issues with School Z’s admission arrangements or how they had been applied. The panel decided admitting a further child would cause School Z 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 School Z. 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 Mr X and Ms X and presented by School Z. This includes the key points raised in the appeal. The clerk’s notes record the panel’s deliberations and match the decision letter.
13. In his complaint to the Ombudsman Mr X said the Council did not apply School Z’s oversubscription criteria correctly and the panel did not give this point enough attention. I note though that Ms X applied from her address and indicated a step-sibling lived at a different address (Mr X’s). Under the Council’s admission arrangements, step-siblings only lead to priority in admissions if they live at the same address. Mr X says Y spends equal time at both addresses, but there is no evidence to show the Council failed to properly apply its published criteria based on the information in Ms X’s original application. It was not then the role of the panel to assign an oversubscription criterion to Y, simply to decide if there was any fault in how the Council considered the original application. It decided there was not and without evidence of fault in how the panel reached this decision it is not one we can question.
14. While I understand Mr X is 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

15. We will not investigate Mr 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