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

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about an unsuccessful school admissions appeal. He says the school admissions appeal panel misapplied the school’s admissions criteria when assessing his child’s faith status and suitability for the school’s ethos.
2. He says his child does not want to attend the allocated school and may need to be home schooled.
3. Mr X wants his child to be offered a place at his preferred school.

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 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 Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X says the appeal panel failed to take account of factors he believes affect the interpretation of his child's faith status.
9. 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.
10. I reviewed the issues raised by Mr X, the school’s admissions policy and minutes from the appeal panel. I am satisfied the appeal panel applied the admissions policy correctly and the appeal followed the correct process.
11. I am also satisfied the panel properly considered Mr X's case. Mr X had the opportunity to present his case and ask questions. The clerk’s notes show the panel considered the information and the panel gave clear reasons for refusing admission. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

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 involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman