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. Mr X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for his daughter (Y). Mr X questions if the panel properly considered his daughter's case and if the correct oversubscription criteria were applied.

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 Broughton Hall High School (‘Broughton Hall’ / ‘the School’).
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

What I found

Background

5. Mr X submitted a late application for Y to attend year 7 at Broughton Hall from September 2025. Because Mr X’s application was late the School had offered all its places and it refused Mr X’s application. Mr X appealed the 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 why the School had not offered Y a place. They explained the difficulties offering a place would cause. The panel and parents could ask questions.
8. Mr X presented his case which included:
• Why he wanted Y to attend the School.
• That three elder children had attended the school.
• He had separated from Y’s mother last year and there had been no prompts about applying for a place.
• Y’s friends would be attending Broughton Hall.
• There had been a recent bereavement in the family.
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 Mr X’s application. The siblings who had previously attended the school did not give Y any extra priority for admissions purposes. 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 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 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.
13. 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

14. 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