Summary: We will not investigate Mrs 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 Mrs X, complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her son (Y). Mrs X questions if the panel properly considered her appeal, including the evidence she presented.

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)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. The below is a summary of what happened and is not meant to be a complete chronology.
7. In January 2025, Mrs X withdrew Y from his previous school. Mrs X felt Y’s previous school had not properly supported his Special Educational Needs (SEN) leading to Emotionally Based School Avoidance (EBSA). Mrs X electively home educated Y with the help of an online provider. When this was no longer an option, Mrs X asked the Council to provide Y with a year 10 school place. Mrs X wanted Y to attend School B and had previously appealed for a place.
8. In Apil 2025, the Council started to consider Y’s case under its Fair Access Protocol (FAP). Councils are required to operate FAPs to ensure certain groups of vulnerable children are offered in-year places as quickly as possible.
9. The Council’s FAP panel did not offer Y a place at School B and instead offered a place at School C. Mrs X did not consider School C to be suitable and said she wanted to appeal the Council’s FAP decision. Mrs X submitted an appeal against the decision not to offer Y a year 10 place at School B.
10. The Council originally said it was not possible to appeal a FAP panel’s decision. It would later accept its FAP wording could be clearer. It would clarify that while there was no right of appeal against a FAP panel's decision, parents could still exercise their normal right of appeal. Mrs X says the Council originally said her appeal was for a year 11 place, despite her not having made a year 11 application. I note the Council later corrected this and the appeal was for a year 10 place. Consideration of these points could not achieve anything further.
11. Mrs X is unhappy the Council’s FAP panel did not offer Y a place a School B. We will consider that point under a separate complaint, but details are provided here for context. Our focus here is on Mrs X’s appeal for a place and how the panel considered her case.
12. Mrs X contends the panel did not properly consider her appeal. Her complaint to the Ombudsman included:
• The panel focussing on its own questions rather than the points Mrs X raised.
• The panel dismissing evidence presented by Mrs X.
• The Council wrongly predicting numbers at School B would rise.
• School B having less students in year 10 than during her previous appeal, and yet the panel still found prejudice at stage 1 of the hearing.

The appeals process

13. 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

14. The clerk’s notes show School B’s representative presented their case. The school’s Published Admission Number was 250 and there were 268 children in year 10. The school’s representative explained the difficulties offering further places would cause. There was an opportunity for questions. Mrs X took part in the appeals process and was given the chance to present her case. This included:
• The problems Y had encountered at his previous school and why online provision was no longer an option.
• How she felt the FAP panel had made an incorrect decision.
• That School B was close to home and would help with Y’s reintegration.
• Y’s sibling already attended the school.
• Concerns about School C.
• Information about Y’s special educational needs and why she wanted Y to attend School B over other schools.
15. Mrs X had sent written information in support of her appeal which the panel had access to. There were further opportunities for questions.
16. The panel decided School B’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. 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 School B. The panel refused the appeal. The clerk wrote to Mrs X with the panel’s decision.

Assessment

17. We are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions when the proper process was followed, and decisions were properly taken.
18. The evidence I have seen shows the panel followed the proper process to consider the appeal. Each party had the chance to provide evidence, present their cases, and there were opportunities for questions.
19. The panel considered all the information presented and reached a decision it was entitled to. It considered the information presented by School B and Mrs X. This includes the key points raised in the appeal. The clerk’s notes record the panel’s deliberations and match the decision letter.
20. In her complaint to the Ombudsman Mrs X said the panel focused on its own questions and dismissed evidence presented by Mrs X. The evidence I have seen shows the panel properly considered all the evidence put before it.
21. Mrs X has raised concerns the panel found prejudice, despite numbers at the school having dropped. But that is not a decision we can question, unless there was clear fault in how it was reached. Numbers on roll were one of the things the panel considered – but not the only reason for finding prejudice. Panels need to look at each case on its merits. It was not fault for the panel to find prejudice – even with lower numbers than during the last appeal.
22. Mrs X has also said School B referred to numbers expecting to increase, but this did not happen. Our role is to look at how the panel considered the appeal. That numbers did not increase as predicted is not evidence of fault by the panel.
23. 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

24. We will not investigate Mrs 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