Summary: We will not investigate this complaint from a parent about a school admission appeal panel. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Miss B, complained about the appeal panel which heard her appeal about the refusal of a place for her child (‘C’) at the secondary school (‘the School’) she wanted. Miss B said the panel was biased against her, prejudged her case, and interrupted her presentation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Miss B provided with her complaint and documents from the School and the local authority about her appeal. I also took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

5. Appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal for a secondary school place. In particular, it must consider whether the admission arrangements comply with the law and whether those arrangements were properly applied to the child in question.
6. The panel must then consider whether admitting another child would prejudice the education of others. If it 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.
7. The panel in Miss B’s case decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and correctly applied in C’s case. It also agreed that accepting another child in C’s year group would cause prejudice to the School and the children already going there.
8. I consider the panel was reasonably entitled to reach those decisions based on the information presented to it, and I see no sign of fault in its decision-making.
9. When it came to the balancing stage of the appeal Miss B felt she had a strong case for the School to admit C despite any prejudice this may cause to others.
10. But 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. I consider the appeal clerk’s notes from the hearing and decision-making, and the panel’s decision letter, are good evidence the panel followed this balancing process properly in deciding Miss B’s appeal.
11. In particular, I consider the appeal records show the panel understood and took suitable account of the information and documents Miss B presented. I also note panel members further explored Miss B’s case in their questions on the day. I found no indication of bias on the panel’s part, or any sign it had decided the appeal in advance.
12. Last, the clerk’s notes do not suggest Miss B was interrupted in any significant way during the hearing. Miss B was clearly able to present her case in full and question that of the School. I also note the panel gave her the opportunity to add any last words she wanted to.

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint about the appeal panel which heard her appeal about a place for her child at her preferred school. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the panel dealt with the appeal to warrant our further involvement in Miss B’s case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman