Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a School Education Appeal Panel’s decision to refuse Mr X’s appeal because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the School’s Education Appeal Panel (the “Panel”) did not follow a proper decision making process. He says the Panel did not provide satisfactory reasons for its decision, considered irrelevant information and he did not have a fair opportunity to present his case.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. 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 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the School. This includes the appeal documents, the outcome letter and the clerks’ notes of the Panel’s discussion and consideration.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The key reasons for Mr X’s appeal for a place at School A were: his child Y had a severe allergy; this was a disability requiring reasonable adjustments; Y’s sibling attended School A and could help in an emergency; School A was well equipped and safe for allergy sufferers; School B was not as safe or prepared to manage allergy sufferers; it was not practicable to take two children to different schools; they planned to move closer to School A; the current situation was causing stress and harming Y’s sibling and; School A would not be prejudiced.
7. The documents provided show the Panel considered whether School A lawfully and correctly applied the admission arrangements and whether an extra child would prejudice School A. The Panel then considered whether Y’s personal circumstances outweighed this prejudice. This is the correct process.
8. The Panel’s decision letter sums up its reasoning on the three considerations above. In relation to the prejudice faced by School A, the Panel was concerned admitting an extra child would place additional pressure on already stretched resources and increase the risks of overcrowding in certain areas. The Panel also wanted to ensure School A could meet Health and Safety requirements and have the ability to timetable exams alongside teaching.
9. On the last, the Panel explained it understood the difficulties faced and the reasons for wanting a place but it felt the personal circumstances did not outweigh the prejudice that would be caused by the admission of an additional child. The Panel noted all schools would have to comply with new legislation regarding allergies and that Y had since been offered a place at their second choice school.
10. I note the decision letter does not provide a detailed response on the key arguments raised by Mr X. Therefore I reviewed the clerk’s notes of the Panel’s consideration. These provide further evidence the Panel considered Mr X’s evidence and submissions in full. The Panel had sight of all information in addition to hearing from Mr X on the day. The notes record the Panel’s view that all schools would have to comply with legislation on managing allergies. The Panel did not agree School B could not provide adequate support. It did not consider a sibling at School A was a strong argument that outweighed prejudice and had concerns about the appropriateness and impact of them being a key contact in an emergency. The Panel noted the difficulties faced by the family but concluded their personal circumstances did not outweigh the prejudice to School A of admitting an additional child.
11. Mr X disputes the Panel’s view on the prejudice to School A but a difference of opinion is not evidence of fault. Mr X is also unhappy with the Panel’s views on school safety. But this is also a question of judgement and is not evidence of fault.
12. Mr X provided documents in advance, provided further documents on the day and spoke on the day. Records show the Panel also asked if there was anything else he wanted to say. I am therefore satisfied Mr X had enough opportunity to present his case.
13. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Panel’s decision making to justify an investigation. While the Panel may not have given as detailed reasons as Mr X would like, I am satisfied there is evidenced consideration of the key points. That Y had an offer of a place at a second choice school was part of the personal circumstances the Panel considered, it was not the sole factor. And while I note Mr X felt rushed and led at times, I am nonetheless satisfied he had ample opportunity to present his arguments.
14. My role is to consider the Panel’s decision making at the time. I therefore cannot take into account new information that arose after the hearing and that the Panel did not have chance to consider.

Back to top

Final decision

15. 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