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 Council and the appeal panel.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains his in-year application for his child to attend his preferred school choice was refused. Mr X says the Council misadvised him that alternative schools had spaces and says it did not give him enough time to provide medical evidence to support his appeal. Mr X has also raised concerns about what happened during the appeal. Mr X says his child is now separated from an older sibling who has a place at the preferred school. He says this has meant extended travel times to complete multiple school drop offs and increased expenses. Mr X is concerned all these factors will have an adverse impact on his child’s education and health. He wants the Council to reassess the evidence and grant a place at the school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The School Standards and Framework Act limits the size of infant classes (a class in which most of the children will reach the age of 5, 6 or 7 during the school year) to 30 pupils a teacher. The Appeals Code refers to these as infant class size (ICS) appeals. Panels can only uphold these appeals in limited circumstances.
7. Mr X completed an in-year application for his children to attend a local primary school after moving to the area.
8. The school accepted the application for his older child but refused a place for his younger child because the class had already exceeded the ICS limit.
9. Mr X complained the school admitted another child into the same class without appeal, therefore it had already exceeded the limit. The school told Mr X the place had been given in error. I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice in this regard as the admission of another child to the school did not impact Mr X’s application or appeal.
10. Mr X says the Council misadvised him about spaces at alternative schools. I have seen the list of alternative schools with spaces the Council provided to Mr X. It explained the number of places at schools change regularly and places cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, I am unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.
11. In his complaint to the Ombudsman Mr X said the Council did not give him enough time to provide medical evidence for the appeal. The evidence I have seen shows the Council advised Mr X in its appeal hearing date confirmation, that written evidence should be submitted seven days before the hearing date. Mr X had nine days to provide any medical evidence before the deadline.
12. The School Admission Appeals Code 2022, states appellants should be given reasonable deadlines to submit additional evidence. I consider Mr X was given a reasonable deadline to submit the medical evidence he wanted the appeal panel to consider. Therefore, I am unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.
13. We are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions when the proper process was followed, and decisions were properly taken.
14. Mr X complained the appeal panel did not ask him any questions. However, there is no requirement for the panel to ask questions if it is clear from the written submission.
15. The panel considered all the information presented and reached a decision it was entitled to. This includes the key points raised in the appeal. The clerk’s notes record the panel’s deliberations and match the decision letter.
16. 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

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman