Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the school admissions panel to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains about the handling of her child X’s school admission appeal. Ms Y says there was procedural unfairness and the panel failed to follow the School Admissions Appeals Code.
2. Ms Y says this has caused mental and emotional distress for the family especially child X who now doesn’t want to go to school. Ms Y is concerned about the financial implications of having to homeschool X which is what she would need to do if the school place isn’t granted.
3. Ms Y wants X to be given a place at the preferred school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)).
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by Ms Y and the appeal papers.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

The appeals process

8. 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. 
9. Parents have the right to appeal an admission authority’s decision not to offer their child a school place. School admissions appeals panels must consider parents’ reasons for expressing a preference for the particular school. Panels must decide whether the needs of the child outweigh any prejudice to the school of admitting them
10. Appeal hearings must be held in private and conducted in the presence of all panel members and parties. Appeal panels must act according to the principles of natural justice. 
11. A clerk supports the appeal panel. Parents can give information in support of their appeal.
12. The admission authority must provide a presenting officer at the hearing to explain the decision not to admit the child and to answer questions from the appellant and panel. 
13. Appeal panels must allow appellants the opportunity to make oral representations.
14. Appeal panels must either uphold or dismiss an appeal and must not uphold an appeal subject to any conditions. Appeals must be decided by a simple majority of votes cast. A panel’s decision that a child shall be admitted to a school is binding on the admission authority concerned. 
15. The clerk to the panel must write to the appellant, the admission authority and the council with the panel’s decision and reasons. 
16. Panels must follow a two-stage decision making process. 
17. 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.  
18. 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. 
19. 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.  

Events in this case

20. Ms Y applied on time for a place at School T. There were more applicants than places. The Council applied its schools’ admissions criteria. The last place went to an applicant in a higher criterion than Ms Y.
21. The Council granted child X with a place at another school with places.
22. Ms Y appealed to the Council’s schools’ admissions appeals panel. It considered her appeal in June 2026. She told the appeal panel:
• X struggled with emotional issues and mental health due to difficult family circumstances and experiences.
• School T is causing Child X anxiety due to its location
• X’s friends had places at School Y. X needs to be with them for emotional support and stability.
• Ms Y is a single parent and needs help with the school drop off as she has another child at a different school. She has friends who have children at School T that will be able to assist her with this.
• The home to school journey was safer for X to School T than the allocated school.
• School T is the right fit for X.
23. The appeal panel dismissed the appeal. It said Miss X’s case did not out weigh the prejudice to School Y of having B in the school and there are other schools near to Ms Y that have places.
24. Ms Y says the appeal panel did not follow the School Admissions Appeals Code because it decided some appeals earlier than others.

Analysis

25. The appeal panel’s detailed decision letter records the reasons Ms Y gave the appeal panel for wanting a place, including their personal and medical reasons. This shows the appeal panel actively considered Ms Y’s appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault in the appeal panel’s decision based on the information I have seen which supports its decision. It is a decision it was entitled to take.
26. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
27. Ms Y says she was informed by the school on 1st July 2026 that some appeals were decided earlier than others. Ms Y says this therefore breaches the School Admissions Appeal Code.
28. The appeal panel heard appeals throughout June 2026 for School T. However, they made the decisions for all of School T’s appeals on 24th June after all appeals for School T had been heard. The decision for all the appeals were sent to the School on 25th June. Therefore when Ms Y had the conversation with the School on 1st July they were aware of the appeal results. All the decision letters for School T appeals were sent to parents on 30th June.
29. We will not investigate this complaint as the appeal decisions were made after the final appeal was heard. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the School Admissions Panel made its decision to justify an investigation. 

Back to top

Final decision

30. We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the School Admissions Panel to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman