Summary: Ms F complains about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. Ms F says the appeal panel was not given the supporting evidence she provided. There was no fault in the administration of the appeal, and so the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision.

The complaint

1. Ms F complains about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her daughter at her preferred school (school 1). Ms F says the appeal panel was not given the supporting evidence she provided.
2. Ms F also complains a change in the admission arrangements disadvantaged her daughter.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated whether there was any fault in Ms F’s school admission appeal.
4. I have not investigated whether the change in the school’s admission criteria was disadvantageous for Ms F’s daughter. The final section of this statement contains my reason for not investigating this part of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered:
• Ms F’s complaint and the information she provided;
• documents supplied by the Council;
• relevant legislation and guidelines;
• the Council’s policies and procedures; and,
• comments made by the Council and Ms F on a draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and statutory guidance

8. Statutory guidance about school admissions and appeals can be found in The School Admissions Code and School Admission Appeals Code. Both are published by the Department for Education.
9. Parents / carers have the right to appeal an admission authority’s decision not to offer their child a school place.
10. Appeal hearings must be held in private and conducted in the presence of all panel members and parties. Appeal panels must act according to the principles of natural justice.
11. A clerk supports the appeal panel. Parents have the opportunity to submit information in support of their appeal. The clerk must send all papers required for the hearing a reasonable time before the date of the hearing. This includes information from the appellant and the admission authority.
12. The admission authority must provide a presenting officer at the hearing to explain the decision not to admit the child and to answer questions from the appellant and panel.
13. Appeal panels must allow appellants the opportunity to appear in person and present their case.
14. Panels must follow a two stage decision making process.
15. Stage 1: the panel examines the decision to refuse admission. The panel must consider whether:
• the admissions arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements set out in the School Admissions Code;
• the admission arrangements were applied correctly; and if
• the admission of additional children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.
16. If a panel decides that admitting further children would “prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources” they move to the second stage of the process.
17. Stage 2: balancing the arguments. The panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for the child to be admitted.
18. Appeal panels must either uphold or dismiss an appeal and must not uphold an appeal subject to any conditions. Appeals must be decided by a simple majority of votes cast. A panel’s decision that a child shall be admitted to a school is binding on the admission authority concerned.
19. The clerk must take an accurate record of the hearing, including the proceedings, attendance, voting and reasons for decisions.
20. The appeal panel must write to the appellant, the admission authority and the local authority with its decision and the reasons for it.

What happened

21. Ms F applied for her daughter (G) to start secondary school in September 2019. Her application contained two preferences. School 1 was her preferred school, followed by School 2.
22. In March 2019, the Council told Ms F that G did not have a place at school 1 or 2. The Council said G had a place at school 3 – this was the nearest school to her home with spaces. The Council said it had put G on the waiting lists for school 1 and school 2. The Council told Ms F how to appeal.
23. A place became available at school 2 and the Council offered it to G.
24. At the end of March 2019 Ms F appealed the decision not to offer G a place at school 1. Ms F explained the family moved to the area in 2017 and G could not get a place at one of school 1’s feeder schools. Ms F said school 1 was closer to their home with an easier and safer commute than school 2. Ms F said if G attended school 2, she would have to stop attending gymnastics because she would not get home in time to attend. Ms F also explained there were problems with G’s health.
25. Because there were multiple appeals for school 1, the Council arranged a group hearing to consider the issues set out in paragraph 15. At the hearing the panel decided school 1 had reached its published admissions number. The panel found that the admission arrangements were lawful and correctly applied. It decided extra pupils would result in prejudice to the provision of education and efficient use of resources.
26. G’s stage 2 appeal was heard on the same day. Ms F attended the appeal. The clerk’s notes show that Ms F presented her case. The admission authority and the panel asked Ms F questions about her appeal. The chair asked Ms F if she felt she had the opportunity to say everything she wanted to; Ms F said she had.
27. The panel considered whether Ms F’s case outweighed the prejudice to the school found at stage 1 of the hearing. The panel unanimously decided Ms F’s case did not outweigh the prejudice to the school. It refused her appeal. The panel found that:
• School 2 is accessible by different routes. The panel said Ms F could have considered G’s journey to and from school when she expressed her school preference.
• School 2 could manage G’s health condition as well as school 1.
• Alternative gymnastics clubs could be explored.
28. The clerk to the panel wrote to Ms F three days after the appeal. The clerk’s letter explained her appeal had been unsuccessful. The letter explained the decision in detail.

Analysis

29. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and we cannot criticise decisions taken without fault. The panel followed the proper process to consider Ms F’s appeal. The clerk’s notes and the letter sent to Mrs F following the appeal show the panel considered Ms F’s case and the information she provided. The panel considered:
• distance from home to school;
• safety / ease of the journey to school;
• G’s health needs.
30. The panel decided the prejudice to G did not outweigh the prejudice to school 1. This is a decision the panel was entitled to make.
31. I understand Ms F is disappointed with the panel’s decision. But without evidence of fault in how the panel reached its decision, there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to question the merits of the decision itself.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation and find no fault with how the Council considered Ms F’s appeal.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

33. I did not investigate Ms F’s complaint about changes to the Council’s admission arrangements. An objection to the Council’s admission arrangements was made to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator. The Office of the Schools Adjudicator did not find any unreasonableness or unfairness in the arrangements, or any breach of Admissions code. The objection was not upheld.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman