The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s School Admissions Appeal Panel’s handling of her appeal against the refusal to offer her child a place at her preferred school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.
The complaint
The complainant, Ms X, complains the Council’s School Admissions Appeal Panel did not properly consider her appeal for a place for her daughter, Y, at her preferred school (School Z).
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) We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with 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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X applied in-year to transfer Y to school Z following her move into the Council’s area. School Z was already full as it has exceeded its published admissions number so the Council as the admissions authority refused her application and Ms X appealed against its decision.
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 and impartially applied to the appellant’s application. They also 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 must ensure an accurate record is taken of the points raised at the hearing, including the proceedings, attendance, voting, and reasons for decisions.
Analysis Our role is to check appeals have been carried out properly. We do not provide a further right of appeal or decide whether a child should be given a place at a school and we cannot question the merits of decisions properly taken. If the 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.
While Ms X complains the appeal panel did not properly consider her case the evidence shows it did. The panel took account of the information provided by the school/admissions authority and Ms X and made a decision it was entitled to make. It accepted the argument that the admissions arrangements complied with the law and had been properly applied in her case; it was also satisfied that the school was full and that any further admissions would prejudice the provision of efficient education and the efficient use of resources. It then balanced Ms X’s reasons for wanting Y to attend School Z with the prejudice to the school from admitting another pupil and found the prejudice to the school from admitting Y was greater than the prejudice to Y from not admitting her. It therefore dismissed the appeal.
I understand Ms X considers the decision unfair and inconsistent as another child was given a place even though the school was full, but the panel must consider each case on its merits. The fact it agreed to accept one child does not show it failed to properly consider Ms X’s case.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the panel considered Ms X’s appeal.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman