Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a School Education Appeal Panel’s decision to refuse an appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault causing significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the School Education Appeal Panel (”the Panel”) failed to recognise a mistake was made with her child’s school application and wrongly signposted her to the council.

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, 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 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 Ms X.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X has two children, Y and Z. She recently became aware Y should have received an offer letter from School A, but as she did not receive the letter, she attended School B. This meant when Z applied for School A she did not benefit from sibling priority as she would have done and she was refused a place. Ms X appealed on this basis.
7. Ms X has provided documents showing an admissions officer advised she would have a strong chance of a successful appeal for Y. However, in respect of Z, the Panel would decide based on the information at the time and historical circumstances would not be considered. The officer also said School A maintained it had sent an offer letter for Y, although Ms X said she did not receive this.
8. The Panel’s decision letter shows it was satisfied School A’s admission arrangements were lawful and applied correctly for Z. It considered School A would suffer prejudice if it admitted another child and it did not consider Z’s circumstances outweighed the prejudice to the school. The Panel gave reasons for its decision on key points. It considered there had not been any error regarding Y’s admission arrangements but noted Ms X had complained to the council about this.
9. Ms X says she had not complained to the council and it was clear a mistake had been made regarding Y. She believes this factual error impacted the Panel’s decision outcome.
10. I consider there is not enough evidence of any fault affecting the Panel’s decision. It was open to the Panel to weigh up the evidence and accept on balance School A did send an offer letter and there was no error in Y’s admission arrangements. While the Panel erred in saying Ms X had complained to the council, this was not relevant to its decision that Z’s circumstances did not outweigh the prejudice to the school. Rather the Panel explained it considered Ms X’s reasons for wanting Z to attend School A including it was a better school, its level of pastoral support and community focus, Z’s friendship group attended and the impact of Z if she did not attend. But found this did not outweigh the prejudice to School A.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault causing significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman