Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a school admissions appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the School’s appeal process did not properly consider his child’s case. He says the panel did not take the evidence he provided into consideration.
2. As a result, his child has not been allocated an appropriate faith school.
3. Mr X is seeking another appeal or a place at the school for his child.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

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

5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the School.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. I have reviewed the information the School sent to Mr X in preparation for the appeal. I have reviewed minutes and decisions from the appeal.
9. The appeal took place in line with The School Admission Appeals Code 2022. Mr X and his partner were given time to make their case and the panel considered their evidence when reaching its decision. The decision was then clearly communicated to Mr X.
10. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
11. The Appeal Panel was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide whether to admit Mr X’s child and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Appeal Panel properly considered Mr X’s representations, I consider it unlikely that we would find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman