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. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for his son (Y). Mr X is unhappy Y cannot attend his local school and that the panel upheld other appeals.

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. Mr X applied for Y to start Year 7 in September 2025 at his preferred school (School Z). Mr X was moving into School Z’s catchment area but could only provide evidence of the move after the required date The Council therefore considered Mr X’s application from his old address. It did not offer Y a place at School Z. Mr X appealed the Council’s 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 School Z’s representatives presented the school’s case. They explained the school’s Published Admission Number (PAN) was 360. To ensure all children living within the catchment area were able to attend it had offered 418 places. The school was assuming some parents would decline their offers. School Z would not re-offer any further places until it reached its ‘operational number’ of 390.
8. Mr X presented his case which included:
• He had provided proof of the family’s move only six days after the deadline.
• By offering over number the school had disadvantaged Y. If it had only offered to its PAN, Y may have secured a place from the waiting list.
• There were issues with the school the Council had offered a place at.
• Y had friends and relatives who would be attending School Z.
• There were logistical advantages to attending School Z.
9. The panel decided School Z’s admission arrangements were lawful. The panel noted there had been an issue with the Council’s handling of Mr X’s original application. The Council had assigned Y the wrong oversubscription criterion, but this had not denied him a place. 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 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 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. Mr X says other appeals were successful. But this is not evidence of fault. Panels need to look at each case individually and it is for panels to decide the merits of each appeal. We can only look at how the panel considered Mr X’s appeal.
14. 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

15. 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