Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. There is not enough evidence of fault by the school admissions appeal panel to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about an unsuccessful school admissions appeal for his child. Mr X says the school admissions appeal panel (the Panel) did not fully understand or give weight to his child’s needs and the impact of not attending the preferred school, which is the one closest to their home. Mr X says he and his child are experiencing stress and the Panel’s decision has impacted his finances.

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. (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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and statutory guidance about school admissions and appeals.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Statutory guidance about school admissions and appeals can be found in The School Admissions Code and School Admission Appeals Code. Both are published by the Department for Education. 
7. Parents have the right to appeal an admission authority’s decision not to offer their child a school place. Panels must take into account parents’ reasons for expressing a preference for the particular school. Panels must decide whether the needs of the child outweigh any prejudice to the school of admitting them.
8. The Council, as admission authority for Mr X’s preferred school, refused his application for his child’s entry in September 2026. Mr X appealed this decision. The case documents show Mr X was able to make written submissions and attended and spoke at the appeal hearing.
9. The evidence shows the Panel considered all the reasons Mr X put forward about why his preferred school was best suited to meet his child’s needs. Mr X’s preferred school is the one closest school to his home. However, he does not live in the school’s catchment area. The Panel decided the evidence put forward in support of Mr X’s appeal was not strong enough to outweigh the prejudice admitting his child would cause the school. The Panel refused the appeal.
10. Mr X disagrees with the Panel’s decision but there is no evidence of fault in the way panel members considered Mr X’s reasons and used their judgement. That being the case, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the decision or intervene to substitute an alternative view.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault on the school admissions panel’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman