Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to be able to question its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her daughter (Y). Miss X questions if the panel properly considered her appeal and wants a fresh hearing.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and Cardinal Heenan High School (‘Cardinal Heenan’ / ‘the School’).
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

5. Miss X applied for Y to start year 7 in September 2026 at Cardinal Heenan. Because there were more applications than places available, the School used its oversubscription criteria to decide which children it would offer places. Cardinal Heenan did not offer Y a place and Miss X appealed the School’s decision.

The appeals process

6. Independent appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. They need to consider if the school’s admission arrangements comply with the law, and if they were properly applied to the appellant’s application. They need to decide if admitting a further child would “prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources”. If they think it would, they need to consider if an appellant’s arguments outweigh the prejudice to the school.

The appeal

7. The clerk’s notes show the School’s representative presented their case. They explained how places had been offered and the difficulties offering further places would cause. There was an opportunity for questions.
8. Miss X attended the appeal and presented her case. This was in line with her written appeal. Miss X explained why she wanted Y to attend Cardinal Heenan. Miss X talked about the difficulties Y had faced at primary school. Miss X felt the School had strong pastoral support and had concerns about the school the Council had offered Y a place at. Miss X talked about her own experiences at school. Miss X explained the Catholic faith was an important part of the family’s life. The panel asked questions.
9. The panel decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. The panel decided admitting a further child would cause Cardinal Heenan prejudice. The panel decided the evidence put forward in support of Miss X’s appeal was not strong enough to outweigh the prejudice admitting Y would cause the School. The panel refused the appeal. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.

Assessment

10. We are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions when the proper process was followed, and decisions were properly taken.
11. Each panel needs to reach a decision based on the information before it. The evidence I have seen shows the panel followed the proper process to consider the appeal.
12. The panel considered all the information before it and reached a decision it was entitled to. It considered the information presented by the School and Miss X. This includes the key points raised in the appeal. The panel decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. I have not seen any evidence to suggest this decision was flawed. The panel decided Miss X’s case was not strong enough to outweigh Cardinal Heenan’s. The clerk’s notes record the panel’s deliberations and match the decision letter.
13. In her complaint to the Ombudsman Miss X referred to similar appeals being upheld. But panels are required to look at each case on its own merits. We do not know what was said in other appeals. Our focus needs to be on how the panel considered Miss X’s appeal and if there was fault which brings the decision into question.
14. While I understand Miss X is unhappy her appeal was unsuccessful, there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to become involved. We will not therefore investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman