Summary: We will not investigate Ms 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 Ms X, complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her son (Y). Ms X questions if the admission arrangements of her preferred school were lawful and properly applied. Ms X questions if the appeal panel properly considered her case.

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 Pudsey Grammar School (‘Pudsey Grammar’ / ‘the School’).
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Ms X applied for Y to start year 7 in September 2025 at Pudsey Grammar. Because there were more applications than places available, the School used its oversubscription criteria to decide which children it would offer places. Pudsey Grammar did not offer Y a place and Ms X appealed the School’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 the School’s representative presented their case. They explained the School had offered over its Published Admission Number and the difficulties offering further places would cause. There was an opportunity for questions. Miss X took part in the appeal and presented her case which included:
• A family member already attended the School and Y’s friends would be attending. Y’s father had attended Pudsey Grammar.
• Y did not know anybody who would be attending the school the Council had offered him a place at.
• Pudsey Grammar was close to home and close to Y’s primary school.
• There would be an impact on Y’s mental health if the School did not offer him a place.
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 Ms X’s appeal was not strong enough to outweigh the prejudice admitting Y would cause Pudsey Grammar. 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 School and Ms X. This includes the key points raised in the appeal. The panel decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. I have not seen any evidence to suggest this decision was flawed. The panel decided Ms X’s case was not strong enough to outweigh Pudsey Grammar’s. The clerk’s notes record the panel’s deliberations and match the decision letter.
12. While I understand Ms 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

13. We will not investigate Ms 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