Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the School’s admissions appeal panel refusing her appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused Miss X to lose out on a school place.

The complaint

1. Miss X says the School’s admissions appeals panel should have granted her child, D, a place.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way a school admissions appeals panel made its decision. If there was no fault in how the panel made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Miss X and the appeal papers.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

The appeals’ process

5. Statutory guidance about school admissions and appeals can be found in The School Admissions Code and School Admission Appeals Code. Both are published by the Department for Education. 
6. Parents/carers have the right to appeal an admission authority’s decision not to offer their child a school place.  
7. Appeal hearings must be held in private and conducted in the presence of all panel members and parties. Appeal panels must act according to the principles of natural justice. 
8. A clerk supports the appeal panel. Parents can give information in support of their appeal.
9. The admission authority must provide a presenting officer at the hearing to explain the decision not to admit the child and to answer questions from the appellant and panel. 
10. Appeal panels must allow appellants the opportunity to make oral representations.
11. Appeal panels must either uphold or dismiss an appeal and must not uphold an appeal subject to any conditions. Appeals must be decided by a simple majority of votes cast. A panel’s decision that a child shall be admitted to a school is binding on the admission authority concerned. 
12. The clerk to the panel must write to the appellant, the admission authority and the council with the panel’s decision and reasons. 
13. Panels must follow a two-stage decision making process. 
14. Stage 1: the panel examines the decision to refuse admission. The panel must consider whether: 
• the admissions arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements set out in the School Admissions Code; 
• the admission arrangements were applied correctly; and if 
• the admission of additional children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.  
15. If a panel decides that admitting further children would “prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources” they move to the second stage of the process. 
16. Stage 2: balancing the arguments. The panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for the child to be admitted.  

Events in this case

17. Miss X applied for a place for her child, D, to start at this School, a grammar school, in year seven from September 2025. D had not achieved the pass mark to be offered a place. The Council offered D a place at School Z.
18. Miss X appealed the School’s decision to refuse a place. She told the appeal panel, in summary:
• D wanted to go to this School.
• D would be an asset to this School.
• This School is the right fit for D.
• D had a medical issue during the time of the entrance tests.
19. Accompanying her appeal Miss X attached a GP letter confirming D had had medical issues and a radiology appointment date. She also attached letters from D’s primary school headteacher and year six teacher. They both said D would be an asset to any school. Neither said D was of grammar school standard. Neither mentioned health issues which affected D’s schooling.
20. The appeal panel dismissed the appeal. It decided the prejudice to the School of admitting D outweighed the reasons why Miss X wanted a place for D.
21. Miss X disagrees with this decision. She says:
• The School did not meet the required timescales.
• The appeal panel had not properly considered her appeal.

Analysis

22. The School told Miss X of the appeal time more than seven days before the appeal. It met the notification timescales. Miss X did not raise short notice in her appeal. We are unlikely to find fault in the process leading up to the appeal which could have probably have affected the decision.
23. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Miss X disagrees with the appeal panel’s decision.
24. It is clear from the appeal panel’s detailed decision letter the appeal panel actively considered the case before making its decision. It is unlikely we would find fault in the appeal panel’s decision based on the information I have seen which supports its decision. It is a decision it was entitled to take.

Back to top

Final decision

25. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault in the appeal panel’s decision which has caused her to lose out on a place at this School.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman