Doncaster MBC (05C01531 & 4 others)

School admissions                     Maladministration, but no injustice

30 September 2005

Five sets of parents complained that the Council failed to properly investigate claims of fraudulent applications for ‘Westcote School’ (not its real name for legal reasons) and that their appeal hearings were flawed.

The investigation found that the Council had a reasonable system in place for dealing with fraudulent applications. The Council had investigated four potentially fraudulent cases raised by parents and, in three of them, places originally offered at Westcote School had subsequently been withdrawn. The Ombudsman saw no grounds for criticism on this aspect of the complaints.

All 22 families who originally appealed against the Council’s decision not to offer places at Westcote to their children were invited to a grouped appeal hearing at the first stage of the appeal process. Sixteen sets of parents attended on the day and some found the number of people present quite daunting. Whilst the Ombudsman felt that no injustice arose on this occasion, she asks councils and other admission authorities to bear in mind the likely adverse impact that such large gatherings can have.

The Ombudsman found that, at stage one of the appeal proceedings, the Council’s case was jointly presented by a representative from the Education Service and the headteacher of the school in question. The latter acted as though he were an assistant presenting officer, rather than a witness. At stage two of the proceedings the headteacher questioned parents on their individual cases. Overall, the Ombudsman considered that the degree of the headteacher’s involvement was maladministration and that was compounded by the Council’s failure to forewarn parents of his presence.

Nevertheless, the Council’s case that to admit more pupils to Westcote would prejudice efficient education or the efficient use of resources was a strong one. Ultimately, therefore, the Ombudsman concluded that despite flaws in the appeal process, no significant injustice was caused to the complainants.

Date Updated: 10/01/11