Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

School admissions


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 009 815)

    Statement Upheld School admissions 25-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mrs Y complains about the conduct of the Council's presenting officer before a school admission appeal hearing. She complains the Council failed to respond to her complaint. We have upheld Mrs Y's complaint that the Council has failed to respond to her complaint. This caused Mrs Y uncertainty. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs Y, make her a payment and put her complaint through its complaints process.

  • Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (21 007 009)

    Statement Not upheld School admissions 15-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained that the Council did not provide him with sufficient information and support when he was making an online application for a place for his child at his preferred primary school. I found no evidence of fault by the Council and no fault in the way the Independent Appeal Panel considered his infant class size appeal.

  • Parkside School (21 007 884)

    Statement Not upheld School admissions 10-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the Independent Appeal Panel's decision to not admit her child to their preferred choice of school. There was no fault in the way the appeal was conducted.

  • Suffolk County Council (21 006 358)

    Statement Not upheld School admissions 01-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council provided inaccurate information to the Appeal Panel considering her appeal for a place at School D for her child C. We have not found fault with the Council.

  • Royal Borough of Greenwich (21 009 449)

    Statement Upheld School admissions 28-Feb-2022

    Summary: Mr X says the admissions appeal panel did not take account of his medical conditions and did not treat him fairly. There was inadequate detail in the clerk's notes to conclude Mr X's appeals were conducted properly. However, the identified fault did not cause Mr X significant injustice to warrant further pursuit of this complaint by, or a remedy from, the Ombudsman.

  • Royal Borough of Greenwich (21 010 018)

    Statement Upheld School admissions 28-Feb-2022

    Summary: Mr X says the admissions appeal panel did not take account of his medical conditions and did not treat him fairly. There was inadequate detail in the clerk's notes to conclude Mr X's appeals were conducted properly. The Council agreed to arrange a rehearing of one of Mr X's appeals with a new appeal panel.

  • All Hallows R C High School (21 006 578)

    Statement Upheld School admissions 25-Feb-2022

    Summary: Miss H complains in relation to an unsuccessful school admissions appeal. She says the appeal process did not follow the School Admissions Appeal Code and that ultimately, this prejudiced the decision by the appeals panel to not admit her son. We have not found any evidence of fault in the way the appeal was heard and how the decision to refuse admission was reached. We therefore have no jurisdiction to question the merits of the admission authority's decision to refuse admission. However, we did identify minor fault by the admission authority's clerk with respect to how it communicated the panel's decision to Miss H. That said, the fault had no bearing on the appeals process or decision reached and so we do not consider Miss H or Child X suffered an injustice by reason of it.

  • South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 012 205)

    Statement Not upheld School admissions 23-Feb-2022

    Summary: investigation of this complaint about an admission appeal panel's handling of an appeal for a place in year 1 of an infant school has been discontinued. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome that can be achieved as a result of further investigation.

  • Somerset County Council (21 006 279)

    Statement Not upheld School admissions 16-Feb-2022

    Summary: The Council was not at fault when it decided to withhold a letter written by a school for a school admissions appeal hearing. This is because the School Admissions Appeal Code is clear that schools cannot support individual cases. In the absence of procedural fault, we cannot question the merits of the panel's decision to refuse the appeal.

  • Somerset County Council (21 006 227)

    Statement Not upheld School admissions 16-Feb-2022

    Summary: The Council was not at fault when it decided to withhold a letter written by a school for a school admissions appeal hearing. This is because the School Admissions Appeal Code is clear that schools cannot support individual cases. In the absence of procedural fault, we cannot question the merits of the panel's decision to refuse the appeal.