Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the outcome of a school admissions appeal panel. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the school admissions appeal panel (the panel) did not properly consider the evidence she presented to it when deciding the Council should not offer her child (Y) a place at her chosen school. She says the panel did not properly consider Y’s academic capabilities or that attending the same school as his brother would support his wellbeing.

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 X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Panels must follow a two-stage decision making process. 

At the first stage of an admission appeal, the panel considers whether the decision to refuse admission was made correctly. It must decide whether the admission arrangements complied with the School Admissions Code, whether those arrangements were properly applied in the child's case, and whether admitting another child would prejudice efficient education or the efficient use of resources at the school.

If the panel decides that admitting additional children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources, it moves to the second stage of the appeal process. At this stage, the panel balances the prejudice to the school against the parent's case for admission and decides whether the reasons for the child to attend the school outweigh the impact of admitting another pupil.

7. The admission appeal decision shows the panel considered all the evidence before it, including the information provided by Mrs X. The decision letter also explains that the school was oversubscribed with pupils who had achieved the required academic standard for admission.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We do not reconsider a decision simply because someone disagrees with it. Instead, we look at whether the organisation followed the correct process when reaching its decision. If it did, we cannot question the merits of that decision, even if the person affected believes it was wrong.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman