• You have no chance of winning a complaint to the ombudsman simply because you disagree with an appeal panel decision. You have to show that the panel has not followed correct procedures in such a way that a wrong decision may have been taken.

• School appeals depend on a generally excellent group of unpaid but trained volunteers, with only one member on a panel of three required to have an educational background. Without them, the appeal system could not function and most appeals are conducted courteously and fairly. However, some go badly wrong and the local government ombudsman exists to consider complaints about process. Further details at ombudsman.

• I am pleased to report that 6 of my seven Ombudsman complaints this year were successful. Last year my successes included two primary school appeals. Both of the families were subsequently awarded places in the Reception year at their chosen school. This brings my total in recent years to 31 successes out of 37 (however, I always advise on the chances of success, so that I do not take on cases that I consider unwinnable). Parents who use my services are saved  the stress and work involved in the process and are kept fully informed of progress. I will often explore aspects of the complaint that are not obvious, but are likely to lead to a fresh appeal. 

• Where grammar schools are full or nearly full, appeal cases are often fraught with difficulties for the appeal panel as the regulations are unclear, and often lead to successful complaints to the ombudsman.

• The most likely outcome of a successful admissions complaint to the ombudsman is a fresh appeal under a different panel, unless the fault is such that the complainant would have been entitled to a place if the panel had acted properly.

• In my experience, complaints generally take between two and six months to be resolved, but a recent one went on for eight months.

• For 2008 entry, I won complaints to the Ombudsman on behalf of seven families at Sir Joseph Williamson's Mathematical School, Rochester. Medway Council admitted major faults in the process, coupled with further faults by the Independent Appeal Panel and has now offered places at the school to all those boys who had passed the Medway Test, but were turned down on appeal.  This is the third time in six years I have secured places at this school through complaints to the ombudsman on behalf of groups of parents, representing a total of 27 families over this time, along with many others who were successful at appeal in the first place!

• Because there was a local settlement, not all issues were considered by the Ombudsman, but he expressed considerable concern over the operation of the Medway oversubscription distance criteria for oversubscription. A number of parents were never given details of why their sons had been turned even after the Panel Chairman instructed the Council to provide these before individual appeals. The Council was criticised for not providing the correct paperwork for the appeal and for introducing new evidence (actually just assertions) at the appeal, without notice. The Council neither provided details of the school capacity, not any evidence there would be prejudice if additional pupils were admitted. The council presenting officer did not know that secondary school rolls were falling in Medway. The previous headteacher (now retired) stated at his Open Evening that in the past all parents whose sons had passed the Medway Test and persevered in their applications to the school had eventally been offered places.

For entry in September 2009, the school strongly resisted any additional admissions and just three appeals were successful. This time, although the Ombudsman recognised faults in the process he did not uphold any complaints. 

• Another of my successful ombudsman complaints was at The Thomas Aveling School in Medway for 2009 entry, the key issue once again being faulty distance plotting. I have won several appeals on these grounds in previous years.

• The Ombudsman has published Reports on complaints about Admission Appeals for The Judd School and Skinners School (dated October 31st 2007). Details are here.

• The Ombudsman published a Report on a number of successful complaints at Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School, Faversham, where I secured places for eight children (22 May 2007). Following resolution of the complaints, each family appealed a second time for a place at the school with my support and was successful. The Foundation school had used the KCC Appeals Service and the summary sentence of the Report reads 'Governors cannot take it for granted, without proper enquiry, that the appeals service which they commission will be fit for purpose'. This is a powerful indictment of the process, and the Ombudsman found sixteen different examples of maladministration in the operation of the appeals, including wholly inappropriate questioning, an inadequate clerking service, information provided to the Panel but not to parents, incorrect procedural guidance issued by KCC to parents, pressure put on parents to keep statements and hearings unneccesarily short, refusal to accept parental evidence, improper consideration of headteacher appeal evidence, etc, etc. The previous year another Report on one of my cases was published, this time at St John’s RC Comprehensive school in Gravesend. Copies of these reports are available from the Ombudsman's Office. A summary of the most recent reports can be found here. 

• Please note that if your child has now secured three Level Fives at SAT Level 2, this is not grounds to complain to the ombudsman for a grammar school appeal as the Panel did not know the results at the time. There have to be additional grounds of maladministration to win a fresh appeal.

• The Local Government Ombudsman publishes an annual letter to Local Authorities, reporting on complaints made to him. For Kent and Medsay, details of these are recorded here.