Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the outcome of a school admissions appeal panel. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the school admissions appeal panel (the panel) did not properly consider the evidence she presented to it when deciding the Council should not offer her child a place at her chosen school.
2. Mrs X said this has disadvantaged her child.
3. Mrs X wants the evidence to be properly considered, and the panel outcome overturned.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way a school admissions appeals panel made its decision. If there was no fault in how the panel made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. 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

6. I considered information provided by Mrs X.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Panels must follow a two-stage decision making process. 

Stage 1: the panel examines the decision to refuse admission. The panel must consider whether: 

• the admissions arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements set out in the School Admissions Code; 
• the admission arrangements were applied correctly; and if 
• the admission of additional children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.

If a panel decides that admitting further children would “prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources” they move to the second stage of the process. 

Stage 2: balancing the arguments. The panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for the child to be admitted.  

9. The admission appeal outcome shows the panel considered all evidence placed before it, including the evidence Mrs X provided which is referred to in the document. The letter also states the school was oversubscribed with children who had reached the academic attainment needed for entry.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman