Summary: A parent complained about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to reject her appeal for an infant school place for her child. But we will not investigate this matter as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the panel to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Ms D, complained about the appeal panel’s decision to turn down her appeal regarding a place for her child (E) in an infant class at the school (‘the School’) she wanted. In particular Ms D felt the panel did not take proper account of her appeal case. This related to illness in the family and problems caused by having her children at different schools.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We cannot question whether an independent school admission appeal panel’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider if there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Ms D provided with her complaint and documents the Council provided about her and her husband’s appeal. I also took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

5. Appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. In particular, the law says the size of an infant class must be no more than 30 pupils per teacher, with very limited exceptions. The statutory School Admission Appeals Code also says that in infant class size appeals, the panel must consider whether:

• admitting another child would breach the infant class size limit;
• the admission arrangements comply with the law, and were properly applied to the case; and
• the decision to refuse a place was one which a reasonable authority would have made in the circumstances.

What is ‘reasonable’ is a high test. To uphold an appeal on this basis the panel would have to decide the refusal of a place was “perverse” or “outrageous”.

6. The School’s normal admission number is 120, with year groups split into four classes of 30. At the appeal hearing the Council confirmed there were already 120 children in E’s year group. So the panel decided that giving E a place would mean breaching the infant class size limit. It also decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and correctly applied in E’s case. I consider the panel had good reason to reach these decisions, based on information provided to it.
7. Mr & Ms D believed they had compelling arguments for the School to accept E despite any prejudice this would cause. Mr D spoke at the hearing and, in particular, stressed the family’s difficult personal circumstances and the advantages for all his children if they went to the same school. So they questioned why the panel did not uphold their appeal and whether it had properly considered their case.
8. However I consider the appeal clerk’s notes from the hearing and decision making, and the panel’s decision letter, show the panel understood and took suitable account of the issues Mr & Ms D raised in their case. Clearly the panel also gave Mr D a reasonable opportunity to speak, and evidently explored the issues further with him in their questions at the hearing.
9. But after the hearing it was the panel’s job to weigh up the information from both sides at the appeal and form its own view about the opposing cases. The panel also had to apply the strict rules the law requires about the size of infant classes. In effect, the panel could only uphold Mr & Ms D’s appeal if it found the Council’s decision to refuse E a place at the School was one no reasonable authority would have made. But I do not see there is evidence of fault in the panel’s decision-making about this matter to justify us questioning the result of their appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms D’s complaint about the appeal panel’s decision to turn down her appeal for an infant class place for her child at her preferred school. There is not enough evidence of fault by the panel to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman