The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about unsuccessful school admission appeals. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.
The complaint
Mr X complained about unsuccessful school admission appeals for his two children. Mr X said the appeal started late, felt rushed, and has raised concerns about the panel’s decision making.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Background
Mr X applied for his daughter (Y) to attend Year 3 and his son (Z) to attend Year 4 at his preferred primary school (School B). Mr X’s other child already attends the school. Mr X wanted to move his other children because of problems with their current school.
The appeals process 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.
Mr X’s appeal The clerk’s notes show the Council’s representative presented their case. They explained how the applications had been dealt with and why the Council had not offered Y or Z places. They explained the difficulties offering places would cause. The panel and Mr X could ask questions. Mr X presented his case and explained why he wanted a place at School B. Mr X outlined his concerns with Y and Z’s current school.
The panel decided School B’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. The panel decided admitting a further child in Year 3 or 4 would cause School B prejudice. The panel decided the evidence put forward in support of Mr X’s appeal was not strong enough to outweigh the prejudice admitting Y or Z would cause School B. The panel refused Mr X’s appeals. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.
Assessment I understand Mr X is unhappy with the panel’s decision. But we are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions when the proper process was followed and decisions were properly taken.
Mr X says the appeal started late and it clearly did. It is sometimes the case that earlier appeals will run over. It was because of this Mr X’s hearing started late. But this does not mean there was fault in the way the panel considered Mr X’s appeal.
Each panel needs to reach a decision based on the information before it. The evidence I have seen shows the panel followed the proper process to conduct the hearing.
Mr X says the panel did not properly consider the information he presented and has pointed out errors in the clerk’s notes. But having considered the points Mr X has raised I do not consider them to undermine the panel’s decision making as a whole. Mr X also says there were technical issues. I was not there at the time, but the clerk’s notes do not show either side were hindered from presenting their cases.
The panel considered all the information before it and reached a decision it was entitled to. It considered the school’s case, the issues at the heart of Mr X’s case, and balanced the two. It decided to not uphold the appeals which is a decision the panel was entitled to take. I have not seen enough evidence the panel did not properly consider the appeal to warrant an investigation.
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