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 daughter (Y). Mrs X questions if the panel properly considered the information she supplied in support of her appeal. This included information about Y’s sibling who already attends Mrs X’s preferred school.

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. Mrs X applied for her daughter (Y) to move to her preferred school (School Z). Y’s sibling already attends School Z. Because there were no places in the relevant year group the Council did not offer Y a place at School Z. Mrs X appealed this 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 representative presented their case. They explained the school had reached its Published Admission Number and the difficulties offering further places would cause. There was an opportunity for questions. Mrs X attended with a representative. In her appeal Mrs X explained:
• Y’s sibling already attended School Z.
• Why she wanted her children to attend the same school.
• Y’s current school was too far away.
• Y’s sibling had recent health problems and these were affected by having to take Y to their current school.
• The situation was affecting Mrs X’s mental health.
8. The panel decided School Z’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 Z. 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 School Z 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.
12. 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

13. 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