The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: A parent complained about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to turn down his appeal for a place for his daughter at his preferred secondary school. But we will not investigate this matter as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the panel to warrant our further involvement.
The complaint
The complainant, who I shall call Mr B, complained that the school admission appeal panel wrongly decided to refuse his appeal about a place for his daughter (‘C’) at the school he wanted for her (‘the School’). Mr B complained in particular that the panel unreasonably concluded his appeal was based on convenience grounds and it did not take proper account of C’s welfare.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way organisations, including admission appeal panels, make their decisions. If there is no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information Mr B provided with his complaint. I also took account of documents from the Council about Mr B’s appeal. In addition I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal for a secondary school place. In particular the panel must consider whether: the admission arrangements comply with the law; the admission arrangements were properly applied to the child in question.
It must then consider whether admitting another child would prejudice the education of others. If the panel finds there would be prejudice it must then consider the appellant’s arguments. If the panel decides the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal.
The panel which dealt with Mr B’s appeal decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and correctly applied in C’s case. It also agreed that admitting an extra child would cause prejudice to the School and the children already going there.
But from the evidence provided I do not see sign of fault in the way the panel examined these two issues, and I consider it was reasonably entitled to reach the decisions it came to based on the information presented at the hearing.
Mr B felt he had a very strong case for C to be given a place at the School, despite any prejudice this would cause to it and other pupils.
But ultimately it was the panel’s job to weigh up the information it received from both sides at the hearing and to reach its own view about the opposing appeal cases. As for Mr B’s appeal, I consider the appeal clerk’s notes from the hearing and decision-making, and the panel’s decision letter, provide evidence the panel properly followed this balancing process before reaching its decision in C’s case.
In particular, I consider the clerk’s notes indicate that panel members understood and took account of the issues in Mr B’s appeal case in making their decision, and I do not see there is evidence to suggest the panel failed to consider any significant points Mr B raised about the family’s circumstances, C’s welfare and issues with the offered school, even if he would disagree with the relative weight the panel gave to those points.
But we may not question an appeal panel’s decision unless there is fault in the decision-making process which may have affected the outcome. In the circumstances I do not see sign of fault which would give us grounds to challenge the panel’s decision in Mr B’s case.
In addition, from the information provided I found no indication of any other fault in the appeal process or that the proceedings were not in line with the statutory guidance in the School Admission Appeals Code. In particular, I note that Mr B was given a reasonable opportunity to make his case, question the School’s case, and answer the panel’s questions.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint concerning the appeal panel’s decision to reject his appeal about the refusal of a place for his daughter at his preferred secondary school. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the panel considered the appeal to warrant our further involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman