Ombudsman calls for justice on admission appeals

Archived press release

Date Published: 25/07/08

The Ombudsman has issued a second report calling on All Saints Benhilton School, Sutton, to provide fresh appeal hearings to parents of three children

All Saints Benhilton Church of England Primary School, Sutton has declined to provide fresh appeal hearings to the parents of three children as recommended by the Local Government Ombudsman, Jerry White. The parents were disadvantaged when making their original appeals because the School did not tell them the reasons why their children had not received places.

In his second (further) report, issued today (25 July 2008), the Ombudsman says “My previous report on these complaints identified clear and significant failures to follow the [School Admission] Appeals Code [of Practice]. The Governing Body’s continuing intransigence in the face of the evidence is disappointing. I remain unconvinced by its reasons for not implementing my recommendations in full. Its failure to do so means that [the parents] continue to be denied the opportunity of a fair hearing.” 

He goes on “It is concerning that the Governing Body appears to have an inadequate understanding, both of its responsibilities as an admission authority and of the requirements of natural justice. I have drawn this matter to the attention of Mr Ed Balls, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and I shall also send him a copy of this further report.” 

Three parents had applied unsuccessfully for places for their sons in the School’s reception year. They complained about the handling of the appeals against the refusal of their applications. The School is voluntary-aided, and the Governing Body is the admission authority. 

In his first report (10 January 2008), the Ombudsman found that the appeals were not conducted in accordance with the School Admission Appeals Code of Practice. In particular, the School failed to provide written information in advance of the appeal hearings explaining properly why the applications had been unsuccessful. The Ombudsman concluded that this left the complainants at a considerable disadvantage when making their appeals. He also criticised the destruction of records relating to the appeals. 

The School’s Governing Body has declined to fulfil the Ombudsman’s recommendation to offer fresh appeals to the complainants, and says there would be organisational problems. The Ombudsman comments “I understand that organising appeals imposes a burden on the Governing Body. But doing the right thing is not necessarily cheap and easy.”

The School is taking some steps towards fulfilling the Ombudsman’s other two recommendations; providing training for panel members and arranging to keep a pro forma record of appeal hearings, but the Ombudsman emphasises that appeal panel clerks and governors should also receive training, and that all records – and specifically the clerk’s notes of an appeal hearing – should be retained, and that the new Appeals Code makes this mandatory.

Further report refs 07B04448, 07B04816 and 07B05311