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 by the panel for us to be able to question its decision.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for his daughter (Y).
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 Cressex Community School (‘Cressex’ / ‘the School’).
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Background
Mr X applied for Y to join year 7 at Cressex. Because there were more applications than places available, the School used its oversubscription criteria to decide which children it would offer places. Cressex did not offer Y a place. The Council offered Y a place at an alternative school and Mr X appealed the School’s 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 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 appeal The clerk’s notes show the School’s representative presented their case. They explained the difficulties offering a place would cause. The panel could ask questions. Mr X was unable to join the hearing so the panel considered his appeal based on written submissions which included: Cressex was the catchment school.
There were transport issues to the school offered.
Y’s friends were going to Cressex.
No other children from Y’s primary school were going to the school offered. The School’s representative responded to this and said 23 children from Y’s primary school would be going to the school offered.
A letter of support from Y’s primary school.
Information about Y’s health.
The panel did not identify any issues with the School’s admission arrangements or how they had been applied. The panel decided admitting a further child would cause the School prejudice. The panel decided the evidence put forward in support of Y’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 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. It considered the information submitted by Mr X and presented by the School. The clerk’s notes record the panel’s deliberations and match the decision letter.
While I understand Mr X is unhappy the appeal was unsuccessful, there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to become involved. We will not therefore investigate.
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
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman