Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her son (Y). She says the Council used tactics to stop Y from getting a place at the school (School Z) and believes it discriminated against him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Y is currently home-schooled. Miss X has applied for spaces at two local schools including School Z but her applications were unsuccessful because the schools were already full. There are other schools available for Y but Miss X does not wish to send him there and would prefer to wait. Y is currently on the waiting list for both schools and appealed against the decision to refuse him a place at School Z.
6. 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.
7. The Council has provided copies of its correspondence with Miss X about the appeals process along with the minutes of the appeal hearing and the written decision to refuse her appeal. The evidence shows Miss X and the school presented their cases and that Miss X had an opportunity for questions. Miss X explained why she wanted Y to attend School Z and her reasons for not considering the other schools in the area which had spaces for Y.
8. The panel considered the arguments put forward by both sides and was satisfied the admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. The panel decided admitting a further child to the relevant year group would prejudice the provision of efficient education and the efficient use of resources at the school and that the evidence put forward in support of Miss X’s appeal was not strong enough to outweigh the prejudice admitting Y would cause the school. The panel therefore refused Miss X’s appeal and explained the reasons for its decision in writing to her.
9. I understand Miss X is unhappy her appeal was unsuccessful but we are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions unless there is evidence of fault in the process. The evidence in this case shows the appeal panel followed the proper process in considering and deciding Miss X’s appeal and that its decisions were properly taken.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman