Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel’s failure to provide her child with a place at School Y. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused them to lose out on a school place.

The complaint

1. Mrs X, says the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel did not properly consider her appeal for a place for her child, Z, at School Y.

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 a 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 must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Background information

6. Following a home move, Mrs X applied for her child Z to have a place at School Y starting in year three in September 2024. The year group in that school was full and her application declined. The Council in line with its policy allocated a place at the nearest school with places. This is more than three miles from her home.
7. Mrs X appealed for a place. Her reasons for appealing included:
• A sibling attended School Y and getting two children to two different schools was logistically difficult.
• Z’s health had declined since the home move and being in a different school from their sibling.
8. An Independent Appeal Panel considered her appeal in July 2024. The Appeal Panel decided not to award a place.
9. Mrs X complained about the decision. She said:
• The appeal panel had not properly taken seriously the implications for the family.
• It was not fair to offer another school the day before the appeal hearing.
• They had to chase for the decision letter.

The appeal panel and our role

10. Independent Appeal Panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. The panel must consider whether the:
• admission arrangements comply with the law;
• admission arrangements were properly applied to the case; and
• admission of another child would prejudice the education of others.
11. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. If the Appeal 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.
12. Based on the information I have seen which supports the Appeal Panel’s decision, it is unlikely our investigation could find fault in the Appeal Panel’s decision which has caused them to lose out on a place. It is clear they actively considered the arguments Mrs X had made. Whether there are places at other schools is relevant to the Appeal Panel’s decision.
13. The Appeal Panel decision letter shows the Appeal Panel actively considered the case. Appeals code says the decision letter should be sent within five school days unless there is a good reason. Mrs X’s appeal was held after the school term had ended. This means the decision letter did not need to be with her under the Code until five days after the start of the new term. She received it in early August.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find any fault directly caused Mrs X the injustice she alleges.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman