Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her daughter. 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). Mrs X questions if the panel properly considered her case and Y’s role as a young carer. Mrs X says the panel’s letter referred to COVID-19 and this was not discussed during the appeal. Mrs X also questions the approach of not re-offering places until the number of accepted places drops below the School’s Published Admission Number (PAN).

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 Spires College (‘the School’).
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Mrs X applied for her daughter (Y) to start year 7 in September 2025 at The Spires College. Mrs X says she applied online but discovered at a parents’ evening there was no record of an application. Mrs X submitted a paper application which was considered late. This meant Mrs X’s application for The Spires College would be considered after on-time applications. The Spires College did not offer Y a place and 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 why the School had not offered Y a place. 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 Y to attend the School. This was in line with her written appeal. Mrs X explained Y’s sibling attended The Spires College and has special educational needs. If Y attended the same school she could support her sibling. There would be logistical issues if the panel did not offer Y a place. Mrs X talked about the application process and how Y would have been offered a place if her application had not been considered late. Mrs X explained the difficulties it would cause to have children at different schools
9. The panel decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. They decided there were no errors with the handling of Mrs X’s application and the decision to treat it as late. 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.
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 Mrs X. This includes the key points raised in the appeal. It included the support Y provides to her sibling. It is for the panel to decide the weight it gives to each piece of evidence. The clerk’s notes record the panel’s deliberations and match the decision letter.
13. Mrs X has referred to the panel’s decision letter mentioning the COVID-19 pandemic. Mrs X says this was not discussed during the appeal. While it is not mentioned in the clerk’s notes or appeal papers, I do not consider it to be an issue which was central to the panel’s decision making. It is not therefore enough to cast doubt on the panel’s decision.
14. In her complaint to the Ombudsman Mrs X said she was unhappy the School has offered over its PAN but will not make re-offers until it drops below its PAN. Schools are required to offer non-selective places up to their PAN and can choose to offer extra places. But the School Admissions Code is clear that offering extra places does not change a school’s PAN. There is nothing in the Code which requires a school to re-offer places which have been declined when it has offered extra places. This is also a matter for the School, not the Ombudsman.
15. Mrs X has also raised concerns about the School continuing to offer extra places, but only to children who did well in the 11+ test. We can only consider how the panel considered Mrs X’s appeal and this issue was not raised. It is therefore something Mrs X needs to raise with The Spires College.
16. While I understand Mrs 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

17. We will not investigate Mrs 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