Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the School’s actions to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains about the School’s decision to refuse her child (Z) a place. She appealed, but the School upheld its position.

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 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

4. I considered information provided by Mrs Y and the School.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs Y applied for a reception school place for Z at her preferred school. Because there were more applications than places available, the School used its oversubscription criteria to decide which children it would offer places. The School could not offer Z a place at Mrs Y’s preferred school but offered a place at the second preferred school. Mrs Y appealed this decision.
7. The School Standards and Framework Act limits the size of infant classes. The Appeals Code refers to these as infant class size (ICS) appeals. Panels can only uphold these appeals in limited circumstances.
8. In this case, before refusing the appeal, the panel decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. The panel decided admitting a further child would breach the ICS limit and that there were no measures which could be taken to avoid this breach which would not cause prejudice to the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.
9. We are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions when the proper process was followed, and decisions were properly taken.
10. Mrs Y says Z missed out on a place because of an error in the application of the admissions arrangements. She says the School failed to use her new address when determining which child would be given the final school place based on home distance. Mrs Y says Z lives closer than the child given the last allocated place.
11. The panel considered all the information before it and reached a decision it was entitled to. It considered the limited grounds on which it could uphold an ICS appeal and the information presented by the School and Mrs Y. This includes the key points raised in the appeal. The Panel recognised that during the first round of allocations, Mrs Y was still living at the previous property. During the second round of appeals she had moved to the new property, and Z was then living closer than the child of the last allocated place. However, there were no further places available which could have been offered to Z.
12. While I understand Mrs Y is unhappy her appeal was unsuccessful, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the School’s actions. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the School’s actions to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman