Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s School Admissions Appeal Panel’s handling of her appeal against the refusal to offer her child a place at her preferred school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains the Council’s School Admissions Appeal Panel did not properly consider her appeal for Year 7 place for her son, Y, at her preferred school (School Z). She says the Council did not take account of the reasons she wanted Y to go to School Z.

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)
3. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background

6. Mrs X initially applied for a place for Y in Year 7 from September 2024 at School B. She then changed her mind and made a late application for a place at School Z. This was because her daughter had moved to School Z and Mrs X felt she could help Y to get to and from the school.
7. School Z had more applications than spaces available so the Council allocated places to those parents who had applied on-time, according to its oversubscription criteria. It offered Y a place at another school, School C, which Mrs X listed as her second preference, however Mrs X now says this school is too far away. She would prefer to send her son to School Z as it would be easier to get him to and from the school so she appealed.

The appeals process

8. Independent appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. They need to consider if the school’s admissions arrangements comply with the law, and if they were properly and impartially applied to the appellant’s application. They also 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.
9. The clerk must ensure an accurate record is taken of the points raised at the hearing, including the proceedings, attendance, voting, and reasons for decisions.

Analysis

10. Our role is to check appeals have been carried out properly. We do not provide a further right of appeal or decide whether a child should be given a place at a school and we cannot question the merits of decisions properly taken. If the panel has been properly informed, and used the correct procedure, then it is entitled to come to its own judgment about the evidence it hears.
11. The evidence available in this case shows the Council as the admissions authority considered Mrs X’s application against the oversubscription criteria and allocated Y a place at the closest available school. When she appealed, the Council sent her a copy of the school’s case explaining how spaces had been allocated, that they were allocated in accordance with their admissions arrangements and that the school was full.
12. The panel considered Mrs X’s appeal but accepted the argument that admitting Y to the school would prejudice the provision of efficient education and the efficient use of resources. The panel was satisfied the admissions arrangements complied with the law and were correctly and impartially applied in Y’s case. It then considered Mrs X’s reasons for wanting Y to attend School Z and balanced these against the prejudice to the school from admitting another pupil. It found there was nothing significant enough to outweigh the prejudice to the school, so it refused Mrs X’s appeal. The Council then wrote to Mrs X setting out the decision and the panel’s reasons.
13. I appreciate Mrs X disagrees with the appeal panel’s decision but I have not seen enough evidence of fault for us to question it. The panel properly considered Mrs X’s appeal and reached a decision it was entitled to reach.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the panel considered Mrs X’s appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman