Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council did not uphold his school appeal. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained after his child Y, was unsuccessful at getting a place at his preferred school (the School). He said the school allocated was unsuitable because Y has been bullied in the past, and the perpetrators had got places at the same school as Y. He said he was concerned the bullying would continue. Mr X said Y had suffered mental health problems because of the bullying. Mr X wants the Council to offer Y a place at his preferred school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. We consider whether there was fault in the way a school admissions appeals panel made its decision. If there was no fault in how the panel made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (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 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Council’s School appeal hearing guidance on its website.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision not to allocate Y a place at his preferred school. That appeal was considered by the Independent Appeal Panel. Panels must follow a two-stage decision making process. 
8. Stage 1: the panel examines the decision to refuse admission. The panel must consider whether: 

• the admissions arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements set out in the School Admissions Code; 
• the admission arrangements were applied correctly; and if 
• the admission of additional children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.  

9. If a panel decides that admitting further children would “prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources” they move to the second stage of the process. 
10. Stage 2: balancing the arguments. The panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for the child to be admitted.  
11. The Panel considered Mr X’s appeal through the two-stage process. At stage one the School represented its case. It explained it was oversubscribed and set out how it had allocated spaces. It said why it could not take additional pupils. Mr X presented his case at the second stage of appeal. He set out the concerns of Y attending the school allocated, and why he wanted Y to attend the School.
12. The Panel decided the admission arrangements were lawful and properly applied. It considered the information provided by Mr X but decided not to admit Y as his admission would prejudice the provision of efficient education.
13. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has followed its appeals process. I am satisfied the admission arrangements were correctly and impartially applied. The clerk’s notes record the panel’s deliberations and match the decision letter. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Panel considered the appeal to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman