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 he son has not been offered a place at his preferred school which is close to his home.

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 Nobel School (the School).
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Mr X applied for Y to start secondary school in September 2025. Mr X’s preferences were based on a planned move. The Council could not offer a place at Mr X’s preferred schools and so it offered a place at the nearest alternative. Mr X’s planned move did not go ahead and he appealed for a place at The Nobel School.

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 The Nobel School had reached its Published Admission Number and the difficulties offering further places would cause. There was an opportunity for questions. In his appeal Mr X explained:
• The family live close to The Nobel School.
• The school offered was too far away and neither parent could accompany Y.
• Y’s friends were going to the School.
8. The panel decided the School’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 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

9. We are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions when the proper process was followed, and decisions were properly taken.
10. 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.
11. The panel considered all the information before it and reached a decision it was entitled to. It considered the information presented by The Nobel 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.
12. 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

13. 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