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 panel for us to be able to question its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for his daughter (Y). Mr X said the School and appeal panel failed to follow guidance relating to school admissions and children previously in care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an independent school admissions appeals panel’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider if there was fault in the way the decision was reached. 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 the complainant and Archbishop Blanch School (the School).
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

School admissions and Looked After / Previously Looked After Children

5. All schools must have a set of admission arrangements which explain how places will be offered. Schools in their admission arrangements must give highest priority to looked after children and previously looked after children.
6. A 'looked after' child is defined as a child in the care of the local authority or who is being provided with accommodation by a local authority in the exercise of their social services functions at the time of making an application to the school.
7. A 'previously looked after' child is a child who was looked after but were then immediately adopted, became subject to a Child Arrangements Order, or a Special Guardianship Order. 

Application

8. Mr X applied for his daughter (Y) to attend Year 7 at the School. As there were more applications than places available, the School used its oversubscription criteria to decide which children it would offer places. The School did not offer Y a place. Mr X appealed the decision.

The appeals process

9. 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

10. The clerk’s notes show the School’s representative presented their case at the first stage of the appeal. They explained how the School had dealt with the applications it had received. The School’s representative talked about how the School had applied its admission arrangements and why it had offered places above its Published Admissions Number (PAN) They explained the difficulties offering further places would cause. The panel and parents could ask questions.
11. The panel decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. The panel decided admitting a further child would cause the School prejudice.
12. Mr X and Mrs X presented their case. This was in line with the written appeal submitted. The School was close to the family and home and was their first choice. There would be logistical issues if the panel did not offer a place. Mrs X did not drive and Mr X worked overseas. The school the Council had offered Y a place at did not have a religious ethos.
13. During the appeal, Mr X also referred to Y having previously been in the care of the Local Authority. Y had now returned home full-time. The panel asked questions about this and Mr and Mrs X confirmed they could provide evidence of this.
14. The panel considered Mr and Mrs X’s case and balanced it against the prejudice found in the first part of the hearing. The clerk’s notes refer to the clerk contacting the School which confirmed Y did not qualify as a looked after or previously looked after child. The panel decided the evidence put forward in support of Mr and 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

15. I understand Mr X is unhappy the appeal was unsuccessful. But we are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions when the proper process was followed, and decisions were properly taken. The evidence I have seen shows the panel followed the proper process to consider the appeal.
16. The panel decided there were no issues in how the School had dealt with Y’s application and whether they should be treated as a looked after or previously looked after child. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the panel considered this issue. This is because:
• Y is not currently in the care of the local authority – so she would not qualify as a looked after child.
• Y was previously in care. But this does not automatically make her a previously looked after child for the purpose of school admissions. That would only apply if when she had been in care she was immediately adopted, became subject to a Child Arrangements Order or a Special Guardianship Order. I have not seen any evidence this was the case.
17. In their complaint to the Ombudsman, Mr and Mrs X said they did not know looked after children received higher priority in school admissions. But even if they had known, it would not have made a difference to their application. This is because Y did not qualify as such a child. Mrs X also raised general concerns about how the appeal was handled. These included the general conduct of panel members and a suggestion by one panel member that Y travel to school on their own.
18. I was not at the appeal and so the Ombudsman’s decision needs to be based on the evidence available.
19. This shows the panel considered all the information before it and reached a decision it was entitled to. The panel took into account the information presented by the School and Mr X. This includes the key points Mr and Mrs X raised in their appeal. Each panel needs to reach a decision based on the information before it.
20. The clerk’s notes record the panel’s deliberations and match the decision letter. They show how the panel decided the issue of prejudice. The panel decided the case put forward did not outweigh the prejudice to the school.
21. Based on the evidence I have seen there is not enough evidence of fault in how the panel considered the appeal for us to be able to question the panel’s decision. An investigation is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman