The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a school admissions appeal panel’s decision. We are unlikely to achieve a significant remedy as he has had a second successful appeal.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, says the Council should not have refused to give his child, Z, a place at School 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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The appeal panel and our role Statutory guidance about school admissions and appeals can be found in The School Admissions Code and School Admission Appeals Code. Both are published by the Department for Education.
Parents/carers have the right to appeal an admission authority’s decision not to offer their child a school place to an Independent Appeal Panel.
Independent Appeal Panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. The panel must consider whether the: admission arrangements comply with the law; admission arrangements were properly applied to the case; and admission of another child would prejudice the education of others.
If the panel finds there would be prejudice the panel must then consider each appellant’s individual arguments. If the panel decides the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal. This means it can say a school is full but decide a child’s case is so compelling that it is more important to admit that child than prevent the effects to a school by having one more child.
We cannot question the decision if it has been properly taken. If the panel has been properly informed and used the correct procedure before it reaches its decision, then it is entitled to come to its own judgment about the evidence it hears.
Events in this case and analysis Mr X says before his family moved from the UK, his child Z attended School Y. They returned to the UK in the summer of 2022. Mr X applied for a place at School Y in year five for Z in May 2022. The Council refused the application and said there was no place available. Mr X appealed to the Council’s school admissions appeal panel.
The appeal panel heard Mr X’s appeal in July 2022. It turned down his appeal. Mr X applied again to the Council in August for a place in year six for Z to start in September 2022. The Council refused the application and said there was no place available. Mr X appealed to the Council’s school admissions appeal panel.
The appeal panel heard his case in late September 2022. It agreed to grant Z a place at School Y.
Mr X said the first appeal panel was wrong to refuse his appeal. He says there was no place available at any school within a reasonable distance and so they should have been granted the place. Mr X also says his case should have been referred to the Fair Access Protocol procedure. He says the process has meant Z has missed school.
If our investigation was to find fault in the first appeal panel hearing, the remedy we would have obtained would have been a further appeal. Mr X has had a further appeal which has been successful. Our investigation could not achieve significantly more.
Both appeals were heard within the timescales specified by the School Admissions Appeals Code.
Mr X does not live within this Council’s area. The Council does not have a duty to provide Z with any education. Any complaint about a failure to provide an education or whether the Fair Access Protocol should have been applied is not for this Council.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we could achieve significantly more.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman