The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the School Education Appeal Panel’s decision to refuse an appeal for a school place for Mr X’s child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.
The complaint
Mr X complains the School Education Appeal Panel (the “Panel”) wrongly refused his appeal for his child, Y. He says there were spaces available in the school and so one should have been given to Y.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue 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)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Panel decided the school’s admission arrangements were lawful and correctly applied. It considered the information provided and decided admitting any extra child would prejudice the education the school could provide. It then went on to consider whether the circumstances of Y were such that these outweighed the prejudice faced to the school. It found the case Mr X made did not outweigh the difficulty caused to the school of admitting Y and so the appeal was unsuccessful.
The Panel considered all the information provided and reached a reasoned decision in line with relevant law and policy. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Panel’s decision making to justify an investigation.
That places were offered to other children following their own appeals does not mean Mr X’s child should have got a place. The Panel balance the circumstances of any child with the prejudice faced to the school of admitting another child. The circumstances of other children with successful appeals were likely different to those of Mr X’s child and so the outcome of the balancing decision was different.
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