Summary: Miss X complains of fault by a school admissions appeal panel in refusing a school place for her son, causing her serious inconvenience and affecting her health in having to take her children to different schools. The panel conducted the appeal without fault.

The complaint

1. The Complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complains a school admissions appeal panel wrongly refused a school place for her son. She says she has had to take her children to two different schools, and this has caused serious inconvenience and affected her health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an independent school admissions appeals 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. If we find fault, which calls into question the panel’s decision, we may ask for a new appeal hearing. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the School Admission Appeals Code 2012 (the Code) and read the appeal papers supplied by the Council. I also considered the responses of members of the panel to an earlier draft. I shared a draft of this decision with both parties and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Miss X applied for a school place for her son for September 2018 in the Reception class at a primary school she preferred. The Council, which is the admissions authority, refused the place as other children had higher priority in the over-subscription criteria of the admissions policy.
6. Miss X appealed against the refusal. A panel turned down her appeal. She says it was at fault.

What should happen?

7. There were 30 children in the Reception class and the appeal papers show there was no prospect of providing another class. So, infant class-size prejudice (ICSP) applied. This limits the maximum size of a Reception, Year 1 or Year 2 class to 30 children. This means ICSP appeals involve only a single stage, rather than having a second stage in which a parent’s circumstances can be balanced against the needs of the full school. Panels in ICSP cases can only rarely move to a second stage. They can do this if children are in an excepted category, such as those with an Education Health and Care Plan, and they find the school is full regardless of ICSP. They can only uphold appeals for non-excepted children (whether at the first stage or after a second stage where the school is full regardless of ICSP) if one of three grounds arose during the allocation of places.
8. The three grounds are where the admissions authority refused the place by:

• Using illegal admissions arrangements; or
• Making an error in applying the admissions arrangements; or
• Making a decision that was unreasonable to the extent of being outrageous or perverse.

9. Panels cannot consider a parent’s circumstances in reaching a decision whether to admit a child if none of the three grounds arose during the allocation of places. There is no second stage to such appeals.

What happened and was it fault?

10. The clerk’s notes of the appeal show the panel correctly recognised at the first stage the appeal was governed by ICSP rules. This was because there were 30 children in the Reception class and no prospect of providing another class. It also correctly found Miss X’s son was not in an excepted category. The panel found there was no evidence the Council’s admissions arrangements were faulty, or that it had mis-applied them. And it found the Council had not acted unreasonably in applying them to Miss X’s son. The panel acted without procedural fault.
11. I note the standard form used by the Council refers to a “Stage 2” and the decision letter in this case spoke of “balancing”. Panel members also referred to “Stage 2” in their responses to the earlier draft. The Council is right that the Code requires it to allow both sides to present their case, that it must be sure a child is not in an excepted category, and that there is not another reason that makes the original decision utterly unreasonable. But these two references are unhelpful. This is because they have the potential to create an impression that a general prejudice appeal in two stages has been conducted. While there was no fault in this case because the panel followed the ICSP rules, it would be good practice to avoid the use of “Stage 2” and “balancing” when considering if a parental case engages one of the grounds for upholding an appeal in an ICSP case.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I do not uphold the complaint as there was no fault by the panel. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman