Summary: Mrs L complains about a secondary school admission panel’s appeal decision. The Ombudsman’s decision is we uphold the complaint due to a wrongly addressed letter. But this did not mean the decision of the panel was flawed.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs L, complains that:
• The panel for her daughter’s school admission appeal did not understand or address her key concern. That was that her daughter needs the support of her friendship group, following the death of her father. And that many of her friends were moving to a particular school (School 1). Nobody from her primary school was moving to the school she was allocated.
• She supported her appeal with significant supporting evidence that the Panel did not properly address.
• The fact the Council addressed its response to her and her deceased husband demonstrates that the Council did not properly understand the reasons her daughter needed the support.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mrs L;
• looked at the documents submitted to the appeal panel and its records of the proceedings;
• spoken to Mrs L;
• written to Mrs L and the Council with my draft decision and given them an opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

5. The Department for Education issued the School Admissions Appeals Code in 2012. This guidance outlines the process which councils must follow when a parent appeals against a decision not to award their child a place at their preferred school. In cases involving admissions to local authority managed schools, councils must follow a two-stage process.
6. At the first stage, an appeal panel must consider whether the admission arrangements complied with the law and were “correctly and impartially applied in the case”. It must then decide whether “the admission of additional children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources”. If it finds the admission arrangements did not comply with the law, were not applied properly, or there is no prejudice, it must uphold the appeal. In all other cases, the appeal proceeds to stage two.
7. At stage two, the School Admissions Appeals Code states:

“The panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for the child to be admitted to the school. It must take into account the appellant’s reasons for expressing a preference for the school, including what that school can offer the child that the allocated or other schools cannot. If the panel considers that the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school it must uphold the appeal.”

What happened

8. Mrs L’s daughter (B) was 11 years old and scheduled to start secondary school in September 2019. Mr L, B’s father, passed away in late 2018. Afterwards B suffered from panic attacks and anxiety.
9. In mid-April 2019, Mrs L submitted an appeal to the Council, after B was not awarded a place at School 1. She provided letters from their GP, B’s primary school, counselling service and Mrs L’s church. They noted that B was receiving psychological counselling and support and suffered from anxiety attacks. Mrs L noted she would be the only child from her primary school attending the school the Council had allocated her (School 2). Most of B’s friends were due to attend School 1. And they had provided much emotional support, following the death of her father.
10. The Council’s submission for the appeal advised any admission over the admission number would “…likely prejudice the provision of efficient education and could lead to educational disadvantage for other pupils”. It provided a statement from School 1, setting out the specific problems faced by the school.
11. In mid-May 2019, the Council and School 1 presented their case at a stage one panel hearing. Shortly after, Mrs L attended the panel hearing at stage two to present B’s case.
12. The notes made by the clerk who recorded the hearing, detail the case put forward by Mrs L. They detail the passing away of B’s father and the support network provided by her friends. The notes also acknowledge the letters Mrs L had submitted in support of her appeal. They record questions the panel asked Mrs L about B.
13. At the end of the month, the Council wrote to Mrs L to notify her the panel had decided unanimously to reject the appeal. But this letter was addressed to Mr and Mrs L. The Council says this was due to an administrative error, after a “system upgrade”.
14. The decision letter outlined the reasons behind the conclusions it had reached at stage one and two. Regarding the latter, it said the School had established that admitting B would breach its class size limit. And that denying B admission was reasonable in the circumstances. It noted that B would have no friends at School 2 and that this could potentially aggravate her mental health issues. However, the panel’s view was other schools could provide support. And B could benefit from counselling, support and opportunities at other schools. It also commented on how Mrs L had noted B’s resilience. The panel’s view was that, weighing up the balance, prejudice to the school was greater.
15. In mid-June 2019, Mrs L complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

16. I find fault in the fact the Council carelessly addressed the letter to Mr and Mrs L. This will have caused Mrs L unnecessary distress. I ask the Council to write to her apologising for this within a month of this decision.
17. However, I do not agree that this fault shows that the Council’s decision was flawed, as the records show the Panel considered the evidence and applied the correct test.
18. In arriving at the view, I reviewed the information Mrs L submitted in support of her appeal and discussed with her the reasons why she thinks it should be upheld. I compared the information she gave to the information contained in the clerk’s notes and the decision letter which the Council sent her at the end of May 2019. Her case was based on the emotional impact of B moving to School 2, without her friendship group. The clerk’s notes and decision letter show the panel considered this information before it decided not to uphold the appeal. Therefore I cannot question the merits of the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I uphold the complaint because of the address on the letter. I ask the Council to apologise. But my view is this did not affect the appeal decision. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman