10. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indication that something has gone wrong.
11. We will be focusing our decision on the outcomes Mr I is looking to achieve, rather than the individual complaint components. Mr I says a panel member interrupted him during the school admissions appeal and the clerk provided incorrect advice to the appeal panel members. He says both things influenced the outcome of the appeal, which was not upheld.
12. Mr I complained to the DfE, however it decided it would not be upholding his complaint. The DfE says, having viewed the notes of the appeal hearing, it was satisfied the ‘interruption’ appeared to have been an attempt to move the hearing on. It says the clerk confirmed that a panel member did interrupt the appellant’s representative at one point during the hearing, but also confirmed the appellants had been allowed to continue with their line of questioning. The DfE was satisfied the parents had been allowed time to challenge the school’s case and that the presenting officer responded to all the questions. As a result, the DfE found no evidence of inappropriate conduct on the part of any of the panel members.
13. The DfE noted that at one point, the clerk advised the panel the appeal could only be based on the decision made at national offer day. The DfE further noted Mr I had disputed this point. The DFE says the hearing notes showed that Mr I had been allowed to present his case to the panel and the panel had considered the events following the original application (alongside the clerk’s advice). The DfE was satisfied the panel had acted in accordance with the DfE’s expectations.
14. Mr I has completed the DfE’s complaints process and has now brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. Mr I says the DfE did not address his complaint fully and did not provide enough clarity and detail in its outcome letter.
15. It is worth noting the DfE can only consider complaints about how a panel was set up or the process it followed. It can also consider whether there is evidence of maladministration that could have affected the panel’s decision.
16. It is also worth noting the Ombudsman can only consider whether the DfE followed its process correctly when dealing with a complaint. We are unable to challenge the outcome of the DfE’s investigation. As a result of our investigation, Mr I would like his concerns addressed as well as a meeting with the DfE.
17. To make our decision, we have looked at the DfE’s complaint responses to Mr I in tandem with the DfE’s complaints procedure. From the evidence provided, we can see the DfE followed its processes correctly when dealing with Mr I’s complaint.
18. Mr I initially contacted the DfE following an appeal hearing in July 2023. The DfE found maladministration during this appeal therefore it granted Mr I a fresh appeal hearing. This took place on 22 March 2024. Mr I complained to the DfE again after this hearing. The DfE requested further information regarding this, conducted its investigation and decided it did not find any indication of maladministration during this second hearing. On this basis, it did not uphold Mr I’s complaint.
19. Mr I requested a further review of the DfE’s decision and on 28 May 2024, the DfE advised it had further reviewed the outcome letter along with all the evidence attached to the case. It determined the panel considered all the evidence presented to it and made its decision in line with the School Admissions Appeals Code (SAAC). The DfE advised it could not do any more and advised it had handled Mr I’s complaint in line with its legal remit.
20. Looking at the evidence provided, we are unable to say the DfE did not answer Mr I’s complaints fully. It detailed all the appropriate evidence it used to answer each complaint point, considering policies and legislation where necessary.
21. Under Our Principles of Good Administration – getting it right – we expect organisations to take account of all relevant considerations and balance evidence appropriately when making decisions. However, this does not mean we can take a view on what weight, if any, that organisation should place on any piece of evidence. That is a matter for the organisation’s discretion, and we cannot challenge a decision simply because we, or someone else, may have made a different decision when presented with the same evidence.
22. Similar is true of the DfE’s role in that it cannot challenge the weight an appeals panel chooses to place on evidence, but can look simply at whether the panel took that evidence into account.
23. The evidence we have seen shows the DfE was satisfied the appeals panel had been presented with and had considered all the relevant evidence it needed to make a decision. Although Mr I may feel the panel should have viewed the evidence differently and in doing so, come a different decision, as we have explained this was not a view the DfE could take.
24. Under Our Principles of Good Administration – being open and accountable – we expect organisations to be open and truthful when accounting for their decisions and actions. They should state criteria for decision making and give reasons for their decisions.
25. We have seen that, in responding to Mr I’s complaint, the DfE explained that it had considered all the evidence provided by both parties when investigating the panel’s processes and handling of the appeal. It went on to say it had determined that the panel considered all the evidence presented to it and made its decision in line with the School Admissions Appeals Code (SAAC). The DfE therefore concluded that the complaint could not be upheld.
26. This explanation sets out clearly the DfE’s reasons for not upholding the complaint and we are satisfied it is line with our expectations.
27. We also note that in its final response, the DfE states, ‘If you feel that your complaint has not been handled in line with our legal remit and would like to make a complaint about the SCCU, please refer to our published guidance on GOV.UK. Please set out which aspects of the service you are dissatisfied with, other than the decision we reached.’
28. We are satisfied the DfE has acted in line with Our Principles of Good Complaint Handling. It has acted in accordance with the law and relevant guidance, signposted Mr I to the next stage of the complaints procedure throughout the complaint and provided honest, evidence-based explanations and given reasons for its decisions. We are unable to identify any indication of maladministration in the way the DfE has handled Mr I’s complaint.
29. On this basis, we will not be upholding Mr I’s complaint. We appreciate the strength of his feelings on the matter and empathise with his situation. Unfortunately, it is not within our remit to question the decision reached by the DfE. We thank Mr I for taking the time to bring his complaint to us, we hope we have clearly explained the reason for our decision.