Summary: Mr B complains at the Council’s decision, upheld on appeal, not to admit his daughter into a preferred secondary school. We do not uphold the complaint, finding no fault in the actions of the Council (acting as the school admission authority) or an independent school admission appeal panel.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant ‘Mr B’. He complains at the Council’s decision, upheld on appeal, not to admit his daughter ‘C’ into his preferred secondary school. Mr B says the Council did not give the appeal panel the correct number of pupils in C’s year group or forward a letter from the family GP about his wife’s health (‘Mrs B’). He also considers the appeal panel did not properly take account of that medical evidence.
2. Mr B says as a result C could not attend her preferred school. Instead the Council offered an alternative school unsuitable because of its distance from the family home. This caused the family distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. 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

5. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:

• Mr B’s written complaint to the Ombudsman and any supporting information he provided.
• Information provided to us by the Council which included the papers considered by the independent school admission appeal panel; the notes of the appeal and the decision letter from the panel.
• Comments made by the Council in reply to enquiries.
• Relevant law and guidance as referred to in the text below.

6. I also gave both Mr B and the Council opportunity to comment on a draft decision setting out my proposed findings on the complaint. Neither commented in response.

Back to top

What I found

7. Local authorities must ensure that primary and secondary education is available to meet the needs of the population in their area. (Education Act 1996, section 13). While parents have a duty to ensure that their child of compulsory school age receives suitable full-time education either at school or otherwise. (Education Act 1996, section 7)
8. Parents may apply for a place at any time to any school outside the normal ‘admissions round’ (where parents apply for places by 31 October for admission the following September). For example, where they have moved into the local authority area. The admission authority must usually comply with any preference expressed by a parent. But it can make exception where to do so “would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources”. (School Standards and Framework Act 1998, section 86).
9. So, when a council receives an ‘in-year’ application it should provide a place at the preferred school if there is a vacancy. If there is no vacancy at the school(s) applied for the council should write to the parent refusing the application and informing them of the right of appeal. It can place a child on the school waiting list if there is no vacancy.
10. If a parent appeals a decision not to provide a place, then any appeal must go to an independent appeal panel. They must follow law and statutory guidance which sets out how an appeal will be heard (School Admissions Code 2014).
11. The panel must consider whether:

• The admission arrangements comply with the law.
• The admission arrangements were properly applied to the case.
• Whether admitting another child would prejudice the education of others.

12. If the panel finds there would be prejudice it must then consider the appellant’s individual arguments. If the panel decides the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal.

Key facts

13. Mr and Mrs B moved from abroad into the Council’s district in February 2019. Their daughter ‘C’ was 11 years old at the time of the move and so in Year 7 of her education. The family first moved in with relatives but after around three weeks moved into their own home. Mr and Mrs B completed two applications applying for C to join their preferred school. This is a single-sex girl’s school. It is a community school, meaning the Council funds it and is responsible for matters including admissions. The school is around 0.7 miles from Mr and Mrs B’s home.
14. In March 2019 the Council refused Mr B’s application. It said it had no places available for C at the preferred school. It offered C a place at another community school. This is a mixed gender school around two miles from the family home.
15. Mr B appealed the Council decision and an independent school admission appeal panel heard his appeal in April. On his appeal form and at the hearing, Mr B said he wanted C to attend the preferred school because:

• Mrs B suffers a health condition that means she can only walk short distances and she does not drive. She could not support C in getting to a school further away than the preferred school. This also took account that C has siblings who attend different schools. Mr B could not support in taking C to school because of his work.
• The family wanted C to attend the preferred school because it was a single-sex school and their religious belief supported the principle of single-sex education.
• C is a shy child. Going to the preferred school she would receive support from the children of relatives who attend the school.

16. Mrs B’s GP also provided a letter of support. This detailed Mrs B’s health and confirmed her limited mobility. Also, that her condition worsened as a result of walking across the Borough to take her children to school.
17. The Council defended its decision not to offer C a place at the preferred school. It gave the panel information both in writing and in person at the appeal explaining that:

• The preferred school year group had an admission number of 300 for Year 7 pupils. The year group was full.
• It considered admitting more pupils would put unacceptable strain on the school buildings and teaching arrangements. For example, in overcrowding corridors or classrooms. It would cause problems for teaching design and technology which it teaches in smaller groups.
• The school budget envisaged the school not exceeding its admission number. The school also had over 50 pupils with special educational needs.
• It had offered C a place at an alternative single-sex school around 1.7 miles from the home address.

18. After hearing from both sides, the panel decided not to uphold the appeal. It wrote to Mr B giving its reasons. It said that it accepted the case put forward by the Council that the preferred school had no vacancies. Further that it found admitting another child in excess of the admission number would prejudice the education of others.
19. The panel said that it did not consider Mr B’s case outweighed “the problems [the school] would face if [C] was offered a place”. The panel noted that Mrs B had medical issues meaning she could not take C to school and the family preference for a single-sex education on religious grounds. But the panel said, “government expectations are that pupils attending secondary school should be able to travel by themselves”.
20. At the same time as appealing the Council decision not to offer C a place at the preferred school, Mr B had made a request for information from the Council. Among other matters, he wanted to know how many pupils were on the school roll of the preferred school. He received a reply on the day of the appeal. It said the preferred school had at that time 297 pupils in Year 7; i.e. three less than its admission number. It also advised that C was in first place on the school waiting list for a place.
21. In answer to my enquiries, the Council has said that on the date of Mr B’s appeal it had offered three places at the school to pupils on the waiting list. Had they not accepted then C would have been offered a place next as she was next on the waiting list. It further advises that Mr and Mrs B have now accepted a place for C to join an alternative school around 0.8 miles from the home address.
22. The panel made its decision without sight of the GP letter referred to in paragraph 16 or the letter in answer to Mr B’s information request referred to at paragraph 20.

My findings

23. I have considered first the Council’s decision not to offer C a place at the preferred school. I do not consider there is evidence the Council was at fault for refusing Mr and Mrs B’s application. There is no evidence the school had available places at the date of application. The Year 7 year group was full to its admission number. The Council’s working assumption would be that admitting pupils beyond that number would prejudice the education of other pupils at the school.
24. I considered that based on the information provided to it by the Council, the appeal panel could reasonably uphold the decision not to offer C a place at the school. The Council provided detailed and coherent reasons why admitting more than 300 pupils into the preferred school’s Year 7 would create pressures on buildings, budgets and teaching arrangements. The panel could reasonably rely on this when making its decision. I could also see no reason why the panel would not consider the school’s admission arrangements lawful.
25. In which case, the appeal needed to consider if Mr and Mrs B’s individual reasons for wanting C to attend the preferred school, outweighed the prejudice this would cause. I am satisfied on balance the panel considered their reasons. The notes of the hearing and the panel’s decision letter both show they took account of Mrs B’s health and limited mobility. Also, Mr and Mrs B’s preference for a single-sex education.
26. But I consider the panel could reasonably decide these factors did not oblige it to uphold Mr and Mrs B’s appeal. The panel could properly take account of government guidance on home to school transport which assumes that secondary school pupils can travel independently distances of less than three miles to school. The panel did not overlook any evidence which suggested C could not do this.
27. I consider the panel decision properly made therefore; i.e. without fault. The panel only took account of relevant matters and nothing irrelevant. As I explained in paragraph 3 above it is not our role to question the result of a decision properly made. So, while Mr B may disagree with the panel’s decision it is not grounds for me to uphold the complaint.
28. I consider the only potential fault in this case centred on the quality of information given to the panel by the Council. I consider the Council should have made clear the number of pupils on the school roll on the date of the hearing. Also, that it had made three offers outstanding to pupils on the waiting list. I do not consider this would have made a difference to the outcome of the appeal. As the panel could reasonably still work on the basis the Year 7 group contained 300 pupils. But, it would have been in the interests of openness and transparency for the Council to clarify pupil numbers in this way.
29. I note also the panel did not see the GP letter referred to in paragraph 16. If so, I consider this regrettable but again I do not think it would make any difference to the panel’s decision. It clearly knew of Mrs B’s health issues and limited mobility and did not challenge that. So, the letter would not have added significantly to its knowledge of her circumstances. The panel instead chose to give weight to a different issue, that of C’s ability to travel independently. As I have explained this was something the panel could reasonably do.
30. Finally, I note that even my judgment was that the panel erred the most likely outcome would be that we would recommend a second appeal. But Mr and Mrs B can obtain a second appeal without intervention from this office. Because C is now in Year 8 of her education they can, if they wish, apply again for her to join the preferred school. If their application is again refused they will have fresh right of appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

31. For reasons set out above I have not upheld this complaint. I do not find fault in the actions of the Council or independent school admission appeal panel. Consequently, I can complete my investigation satisfied with the actions of both.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman