The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.
The complaint
Mr X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for his daughter. Mr X says the panel was biased. Mr X believes the School should have given his daughter priority for admission as her sister attends the School.
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 information provided by the complainant and the School.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Background
Mr X applied for his daughter (Y) to attend Year 7 at St Paul’s (the School). As there were more applications than places available, the School used its oversubscription criteria to decide which children it would offer places. The information Mr X sent with his application meant the School allocated Y the oversubscription criterion “Other non-Catholic girls”. The School allocated its places to children with higher oversubscription criteria and did not offer Y a place. A successful appeal for a place at the school for Y’s sibling (Z) meant Y’s oversubscription criterion changed to “Non-Catholic girls [with a sibling at the School]”. Mr X appealed the decision not to offer Y a place.
The appeals process 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.
Mr X’s appeal The clerk’s notes show the School’s representative presented their case. They explained how the School had dealt with Mr X’s application and why it had not offered Y a place. They explained the difficulties offering a place would cause. The School’s representative explained Y’s oversubscription criterion had changed when Z was offered a place. The panel and parents could ask questions.
Mr X presented his case and explained why he wanted a place at the School. Mr X explained why he wanted his children to attend the same school and the difficulties it would cause if this was not possible. Mr X explained why he was not happy with the school the Council had offered Y.
The panel decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. The panel decided admitting a further child would cause the School prejudice. The panel decided the evidence put forward in support of Mr X’s appeal was not strong enough to outweigh the prejudice admitting Y would cause the School. The panel refused the appeal. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.
Assessment I understand Mr X is unhappy the appeal was unsuccessful. But we are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions when the proper process was followed and decisions were properly taken.
Each panel needs to reach a decision based on the information before it. The evidence I have seen shows the panel followed the proper process to consider the appeal.
The panel considered all the information before it and reached a decision it was entitled to. There is no evidence the panel was biased. The panel decided the issue of Y’s sibling having a place at the School had been properly considered. It took into account information presented by the School and Mr X. I have not seen enough evidence the panel did not properly consider the appeal to warrant an investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman