Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the School Admissions Appeal Panel’s decision to refuse an appeal. There is not sufficient evidence of fault in how the panel made its decision to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains a member of the School Admissions Appeals Panel was biased. She also complains the panel did not properly consider safeguarding concerns for her child, Y.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council and I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Statutory guidance about school admissions and appeals can be found in The School Admissions Code and School Admission Appeals Code. Both are published by the Department for Education. 
5. Parents/carers have the right to appeal an admission authority’s decision not to offer their child a school place.  
6. Panels must follow a two-stage decision making process. 
7. Stage 1: the panel examines the decision to refuse admission. The panel must consider whether: 
• the admissions arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements set out in the School Admissions Code; 
• the admission arrangements were applied correctly; and if 
• the admission of additional children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.  
8. If a panel decides that admitting further children would “prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources” they move to the second stage of the process. 
9. Stage 2: balancing the arguments. The panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for the child to be admitted.  
10. Ms X applied for a place for her child, Y, to attend a secondary school. Ms X appealed the decision. She told the appeal panel:
• School Y was the right fit for Y.
• The personal circumstances for Y attending the school.
• The primary school head had provided a letter in support of her appeal.
11. The panel dismissed the appeal. It said:
• Admitting another pupil would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.
• Alternative schools had places available and could meet Y’s needs.
12. Miss X complained to us and said a panel member was biased against her and the panel did not properly consider her safeguarding concerns.
13. The appeal panel’s notes show it did consider Y’s personal circumstances and safeguarding concerns before making its decision. Ms X had the opportunity to raise her concern about the bias at the hearing but did not do so. There is no evidence the panel member was biased. It is unlikely that we would find fault in the appeal panel’s decision. It is a decision it was entitled to make.

Final decision

We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not sufficient evidence of fault in how the panel made its decision to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman