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 says she was disadvantaged because she was not properly told of the need to apply for a junior school place.

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 St Bede’s Catholic Junior School (‘St Bede’s’ / ‘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 move to Year 3 at St Bede’s in September 2025. Y already attended the linked infant school. Because there were more applications than places available, St Bede’s used it used its oversubscription criteria to decide which children it would offer places. The School 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. Mrs X had moved into the area the previous year and only secured a place for Y at the infant school following an appeal. Mrs X believed Y would move to the junior school. Y’s friends would be moving to St Bede’s and not attending would be damaging to Y. Mrs X wanted Y to remain in a familiar environment.
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. 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 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 says she was not properly advised of the need to apply for a junior school place, but I note Mrs X made an on-time application. St Bede’s offered its places to applicants with a higher oversubscription criterion or who lived closer to the school than Mrs X. There is no evidence a lack of advice contributed to Y not receiving a place at St Bede’s. As noted above, the panel did not find any issues with the handling of Mrs X’s application.
14. 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

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman