Summary: A parent complained about the refusal of her application for place for her son at her preferred secondary school, and about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to turn down her appeal regarding this matter. But we will not investigate the complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Miss X, complained that her son (‘Y’) was unfairly denied a place at her preferred secondary school (‘the School’) on religious grounds. Miss X also complained about the admission appeal panel’s decision to reject her appeal concerning this matter.

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 investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. School admission appeal panels are independent tribunals which consider appeals about refusals of applications for school places.
5. We cannot question whether a 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information Miss X provided with her complaint. I also took account of documents from the School about Miss X’s appeal. In addition I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

Miss X’s application for a school place

7. Miss X was unhappy with the School’s decision to refuse her application for a place for Y. But she used her right of appeal to a school admission appeal panel about this matter. As a result we cannot investigate this part of Miss X’s complaint because of the restriction on our jurisdiction I refer to in paragraph 3. However we can consider a complaint about the way the admission appeal panel dealt with the appeal.

Miss X’s appeal

8. Appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal for a secondary school place. In particular the panel must consider whether:

• the admission arrangements comply with the law;
• the admission arrangements were properly applied to the child in question.

It must then consider whether admitting another child would prejudice the education of others. If the panel 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.

9. Miss X felt it was wrong for the School to prioritise Catholic children for admission above her son who is from another Christian faith but attends a Catholic primary school. In addition, Miss X had ranked the School as her first preference on her application form and she felt that, as a result, her application should be considered ahead of those which listed the School as a lower preference.
10. However the statutory School Admissions Code is very clear that designated faith schools such as the School may use faith-based oversubscription criteria and allocate places by reference to faith. The Code is also clear that admission authorities must not give extra priority to those children whose parents rank preferred schools in a particular order, including ‘first preference first’ arrangements.
11. Y was ranked under the seventh criterion of the School’s admissions criteria, which applied to children of families who are members of other Christian denominations. However all the available places were filled by children who qualified under the first and second admissions criteria, which applied to practising baptised Catholics.
12. The panel in Miss X’s case accepted that the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and correctly followed in Y’s case. In the circumstances I consider the panel was entitled to reach that view, and there is no sign of fault in their decision-making in this respect.
13. The panel also accepted that taking an extra child would cause prejudice to the School and the children already admitted. But from the appeal documents provided I also see no sign of fault in the way the panel decided this matter, and I consider it was reasonably entitled to reach that decision, based on the information presented to it at the hearing.
14. When it came to the balancing stage of the process Miss X felt she made a good case for Y to be admitted to the School, despite any prejudice this would cause to it and the other children going there. In particular Miss X pointed to her family’s strong Christian faith, Y’s education so far in a Catholic school, and the attributes which made him well-suited to the School.
15. In the circumstances Miss X was understandably disappointed by the panel’s decision.
16. But at the end of the day 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, provide evidence that the panel properly followed this balancing process before reaching its decision in Miss X’s case. In particular, I consider the records show that the panel understood and took account of the issues Miss X raised in her appeal case in making their decision.
17. In addition, I found no sign of any other fault in the appeal process, or any suggestion that the appeal was not run in line with the procedures set out in the statutory School Admission Appeals Code.
18. We do not question an appeal panel’s findings unless there is fault in the appeal procedures or decision-making process which may have affected that decision. But I do not see evidence of fault which would give us grounds to challenge the panel’s decision in Miss X’s case.

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the refusal of a place for her son at her preferred secondary school and the admission appeal panel’s rejection of her appeal about this matter. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the panel considered the case to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman