The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. The appeal was held ‘virtually’. Mr X says that due to computer problems he was not able to join the appeal hearing.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and information from the Council. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
What I found
Mr X has recently moved address. He applied for a Year 8 place at School Z for his son (Y). Because there were no places in Year 8, the Council refused Mr X’s application. He appealed the decision not to offer Y a place.
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 clerk’s notes from the appeal hearing show they phoned Mr X three times when he did not join the virtual hearing. The clerk left messages explaining the appeal would go ahead in Mr X’s absence if they did not hear from him. After waiting ten minutes the hearing started without Mr X.
The Council’s case showed what difficulties the school thought would be caused if it offered Y a place. The clerk’s notes show the Panel asked questions.
The clerk’s notes also show that: The panel decided the school’s admission arrangements complied with the law and had been properly applied to the application.
The panel decided admitting further children would cause prejudice.
The panel considered the information Mr X had sent supporting his appeal. This included why he wanted Y to attend School Z and how the journey to Y’s current school was making him very tired.
The panel decided the evidence put forward in support of Mr X’s appeal was not strong enough to outweigh the prejudice admitting a further child would cause the school.
The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.
I understand Mr X is disappointed with the panel’s decision. But we are not an appeal body, and we cannot criticise decisions taken without fault.
The clerk tried to contact Mr X three times when he did not join the hearing. This is the same sort of approach we would expect a clerk to take in a face-to-face hearing. I do not know why Mr X was unable to join the hearing, but I have not seen any evidence it was due to fault by the Council or the panel.
The evidence I have seen shows the panel followed the proper process to consider the appeal. The panel considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council. It is for the panel to decide what weight should be given to each piece of evidence. The decision to refuse the appeal is one the panel was entitled to take.
Without evidence of fault in the decision-making process there are no grounds for us to become involved. That is the case here and so we will not start an investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman