Summary: We will not investigate Miss 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. Miss X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her daughter (Y).

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. Miss X applied for her daughter (Y) to start year 7 in September 2025. Because there were more applications than places available at Miss X’s preferred schools, the Council used their oversubscription criteria to decide which children it would offer places. The Council did not offer Y a place at any of Miss X’s preferred schools. The Council offered a place at an alternative school. Miss X appealed the decision not to offer Y a place at one of her preferences (School Z).

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 School Z’s representatives presented the school’s case. They explained the difficulties offering a place would cause. The panel and parents could ask questions.
8. Miss X presented her case and explained why she wanted Y to attend School Z. Miss X said it was close to home and on the way to the school her other child attended. Some of Y’s friends were attending and Y needed a school close to home due to a medical condition. The school the Council had offered a place at was too far away.
9. The panel decided School Z’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. They decided there were no errors with how the Council had handled Miss 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 Miss X’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 presented by School Z and Miss X. This includes the key points raised in the appeal. The clerk’s notes and letter show how the panel reached its decision.
13. While I understand Miss 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

14. We will not investigate Miss 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