Summary: Mrs B complains about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. She says the panel put too much emphasis on the fact her son was offered a place at his second preference school and did not consider their family circumstances.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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. I considered:
• Mrs B’s complaint and the information she provided;
• documents supplied by the Council;
• relevant legislation and guidelines; and
• the Council’s policies and procedures.
• Mrs B and the school’s comments on a draft decision

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and statutory guidance

5. 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.
6. Parents / carers have the right to appeal an admission authority’s decision not to offer their child a school place.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Appeal panels must allow appellants the opportunity to appear in person and present their case.
11. Panels must follow a two stage decision making process.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. The clerk must take an accurate record of the hearing, including the proceedings, attendance, voting and reasons for decisions.
17. 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

18. Lytchett Minster School is the admission authority in this case. The School commissions the Council to administer its admissions procedure. When an admission authority commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf, it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them.
19. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
20. Mrs B applied for a school place for her son, C. Mrs B put Lytchett Minster School as her first preference. Mrs B says she was not going to put down a second preference, but the Council said it would not accept her application without one. Mrs B says the Council told her to put her nearest school, School E, as her second preference.
21. The Council has no record of Mrs B being told her application would not be accepted unless she named two schools and said it would not give this advice as it is against the Admissions Code. But the Council said it does recommend parents name their catchment school on their application if it is not their first preference school. This is so they are not offered a school much further away if they are unsuccessful with their preferred choice. Whether or not the Council recommended Mrs B name a second preference had no bearing on the outcome of her original application for a place a Lytchett Minster School.
22. C was not offered a place at Lytchett Minster School, he was offered a place at School E.
23. Mrs B appealed the decision not to provide C a place at Lytchett Minster on the basis that:
• his brother was bullied at School E;
• there is a family conflict with a member of staff at School E; and,
• Lytchett Minster has more options and a 6th form.
24. In May 2019, the Council wrote to Mrs B about the appeal hearing. It explained what would happen at the hearing, invited her to attend, and asked her to submit evidence to support her case not later than 5 school days before the hearing. The Council also asked Mrs B if she had any special requirements.
25. Mrs B told the Council she could not attend the appeal because of her husband’s health.

Stage 1 appeal

26. At stage 1 of the appeal the case for the school was put forward by the Council.
27. The panel decided that the admission of additional children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or efficient use of resources.

Stage 2 appeal

28. Because Ms B did not attend the appeal the school’s representative nor the panel could not ask her questions about the reasons for her appeal.
29. The panel considered distance from home to school, a statement from Mrs B’s husband’s GP about his health, an offer from School E, and the bullying of C’s sibling at School E.
30. The panel decided that C’s case did not outweigh the prejudice it had found during the first stage of the hearing.
31. The Council told Mrs B her appeal had been unsuccessful the day after the appeals procedure had concluded. The appeal panel followed this up with a letter which explained how the decision had been made. The panel summarised the evidence it considered from Mrs B and the admission authority. It said it noted:
• that C had been offered a place at School E;
• how far C lives from School E;
• C’s family circumstances;
• C’s sibling being bullied at School E; and
• the family chose School E as a second preference.
32. The panel concluded that, on balance, these factors were not enough to override any prejudice which would occur if further students were admitted to the school.

Analysis

33. The admission authority, via the Council, met the statutory timescales for informing Mrs B of the admission appeal. It invited her to attend and to submit evidence before the appeal.
34. The stage 1 and stage 2 appeals were carried out in line with the process contained in the School Admission Appeals Code. The clerk’s notes show the panel considered the information it was presented with. It is for panels to decide what weight they give to the evidence before them. The decision to refuse Mrs B’s appeal is one the panel was entitled to take.
35. I do find that the panel could have provided more information about the balancing stage and how it decided Mrs B’s case did not outweigh the prejudice admitting further students would cause the school. The clerk’s notes instead focus on why C could attend School E – this does not necessarily link directly to the prejudice test. But there is not enough evidence of fault to call into question the decision itself. The panel considered Mrs B’s arguments and whether C’s case was enough to outweigh the prejudice to the school. Because Mrs B did not attend the appeal the panel did not have the opportunity to explore in more detail why she felt C should be admitted to Lytchett Minster.
36. Where there is no fault in the way an appeal panel makes a decision, we cannot question the merits of the decision itself. This is the case here.

Back to top

Final decision

I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Mrs B’s complaint

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman