Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the handling of her school admission appeal. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the handling of her school admissions appeal. She says the appeal panel (the panel) did not demonstrate that it properly considered evidence she submitted. She says this has undermined her confidence in the panel’s decision to refuse her child’s admission.
2. Mrs X wants the panel to reconsider the appeal and show that it properly considered all the evidence she submitted.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))
4. In considering complaints about school admissions appeals, we whether there was fault in the way the 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

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
6. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and the Schools Admission Appeals Code 2022.

Back to top

My assessment

7. School admission appeal panels must follow a two-stage decision-making process. At stage one, the panel considers whether the admission arrangements complied with the School Admissions Code and were correctly applied, and whether admitting another child would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources. If it finds there would be prejudice, it moves to stage two, where it balances the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for admission.
8. I reviewed Mrs X's appeal application, the evidence she submitted, the clerk's record of the hearing and the panel's decision letter. The evidence shows:
• At stage one, the panel considered the admission arrangements and whether admitting another child would prejudice the school. It decided that, because the school was full and Mrs X’s child lived outside the catchment area, admission would prejudice the efficient use of resources. The panel explained this during the hearing.
• At stage two, the panel considered the balancing arguments and had regard to the evidence Mrs X provided about her child’s educational and social needs. Mrs X had the opportunity to present her case and answer the panel’s questions. The panel balanced her case against the prejudice to the school before reaching its decision and communicated the outcome to Mrs X.
9. There is not enough evidence of fault in the panel’s decision-making to justify us investigating. The evidence shows the panel had regard to relevant factors and evidence when making its decision. Our role is not to decide whether we agree with the outcome, but whether there was fault in the way the panel reached its decision. As there is not enough evidence of fault, we cannot question the outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman