Summary: We will not investigate Mrs 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, Mrs X, complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her daughter (Y). Mrs X questions if the panel properly considered her appeal and wants a fresh hearing.

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))

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and Latimer Arts College (the School).
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

What I found

5. Mrs X applied for Y to start year 7 in September 2026 at Latimer Arts College. As part of its admission arrangements the School offers 10 places to students based on their aptitude in the arts. This is assessed through workshops. Y took part in this process. Mrs X received a letter saying Y had demonstrated aptitude in the arts. Mrs X believed this meant she had met the required standard and would be considered under the relevant oversubscription criterion.
6. Because there were more applications than places available, the School used its oversubscription criteria to decide which children it would offer places. This included a ranking process for students who had demonstrated an aptitude in the arts. Only the ten highest ranked students were offered places under that criterion. This did not include Y who was instead considered under the lowest criterion for “other children”. This meant Latimer Arts College did not offer Y a place and Mrs X appealed this decision

The appeals process

7. 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

8. 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. They explained how students were assessed for aptitude under the arts. There was an opportunity for questions.
9. Mrs X attended the appeal and had the chance to present her case. There was an opportunity for questions from the panel and parents.
10. The panel decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. The panel decided admitting a further child would cause Latimer Arts College prejudice. The panel decided the evidence put forward in support of Mrs 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

11. In her complaint to the Ombudsman Mrs X said it was not clear during the application process that more than 10 students may have demonstrated an aptitude for the arts and that there would be a further ranking exercise. I note Mrs X also sent a copy of an email which said that while Y had demonstrated an aptitude for the arts, it was not an offer of a place.
12. It is not our role to take a view on the school’s admission arrangements and whether changes should be made. We are also not a right of further appeal. Our role is to look at the process followed by the panel. We need to consider if there is enough evidence of fault to call into question the panel’s decision. We cannot question decisions when the proper process was followed and decisions were properly taken.
13. 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.
14. The panel considered the information presented by the School and Mrs X. 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.
15. The school’s admission arrangements are clear that only 10 students will be offered a place under the aptitude criteria. While the correspondence Mrs X received may have led to confusion, Y was ranked outside of the top 10 students demonstrating an aptitude for the arts. It was therefore correct she was placed under the “other children” oversubscription criterion. I have not seen any evidence that Y should have been offered a place at the School in the original round of offers.
16. Mrs X is concerned the panel only asked limited questions about how students were assessed for aptitude. But it is for the panel to decide what questions to ask. I note the panel's decision letter referred to the School working with the Council to improve the information available to parents. This suggests the panel did consider this issue.
17. The panel decided Mrs X’s case was not strong enough to outweigh the School’s. The clerk’s decision letter explains the panel’s decision.
18. So, while I understand Mrs X is unhappy her appeal was unsuccessful, there is not enough evidence of fault by the process followed by the panel or its decision-making for us to become involved. We will not therefore investigate.

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman