Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s school admissions appeal panel refusing his appeal. Mr X is able to apply and appeal again now, and we are unlikely to achieve a significantly different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained his appeal for a school admission did not consider his travel needs.
2. Mr X said it could impact his work and caused distress.
3. Mr X would like to know if the appeal was correct and to assign his preferred school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended).
5. 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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included the appeal panel’s decision letter and information about his appeal.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Events in this case

8. Mr X applied for an in-year school move at School Q,Y and Z in year two for the 2025/26 term. Mr X’s preferred schools were at maximum capacity for the class size of 30. Mr X’s application was rejected, and he was advised that he may appeal.
9. Mr X appealed to the Council’s schools’ admissions appeals panel. It considered his appeal in July 2026. He told the appeal panel he wanted a place for reasons including:
• Mr X moved homes and the new home is nearer his preferred school.
• Mr X is the only family member who can take his child to school.
• Mr X has reduced his working hours to travel to school, this has had a financial impact to his family.
10. The appeal panel sat and heard evidence for the Schools Mr X had applied for. This was done in a single hearing. The panel dismissed each appeal as an infant class size appeal.
11. The clerk to the panel advised Mr X he can apply for the following academic year of September 2026/27 now and appeal if he is not granted a place. Infant class size prejudice would not apply to that appeal.
12. Mr X complained to us. He said the appeal did not consider the travel with the school. He asked if the appeal followed the correct process.

Analysis

13. If we were to investigate and find fault in the appeal process a new appeal would be the likely suggested remedy. That option is already available to Mr X This means our investigation has no worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate because it would be unlikely we would reach a significantly different outcome as Mr X may appeal for the 2026/27 school year now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman