Summary: the complainant says the School as admissions authority failed to properly consider her application for a place and appeal against the decision to refuse a place. The School says it applied its admissions criteria and the appeal panel considered the evidence put before it on appeal. The Ombudsman finds the School acted without fault in deciding the appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, says the independent school admissions panel (the ‘School) did not properly consider her appeal against the decision to refuse her daughter Y a place at the School. Miss X says the Appeal Panel decision letter suggests the Appeal Panel may not have properly considered all the information she put forward.
2. Miss X says this has left Y with a place offered by the local authority which she says is unsuitable for Y causing her 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 must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. Independent appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. The panel must consider whether:
• the admission arrangements comply with the law;
• the admission arrangements were properly applied to the case;
• The panel must then consider whether admitting another child would prejudice the education of others.
6. If the panel finds there would be prejudice the panel must then consider each appellant’s individual arguments. If the panel decides the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal.
7. The Ombudsman does not question the merits of decisions properly taken. The panel is entitled to come to its own judgment about the evidence it hears.
8. If satisfied with an admission authority’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

9. In considering this complaint I have:
• Contacted Miss X and read the information presented with her complaint;
• Put enquiries to the School (as the admissions authority), considered the information presented in response, read the School’s admissions policy and spoken to the Clerk to the Independent Appeal Panel;
• Researched the relevant law and guidance
• Shared with Miss X and the School my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

10. Miss X applied to the School for a place for her daughter Y because she wanted a school away from children who had bullied Y. The family knew the School because other relatives had attended and reported it to be a good school. One relative would be attending when Y started which would give her someone to walk with to school. Miss X believed the School would encourage Y in her other interests improving her confidence.
11. The School’s admissions policy gives priority in the following order to:
• Looked after children or previously looked after children;
• Baptised Catholic children who have a sibling at the School at the time of admission;
• Baptised Catholic children resident in named parishes;
• Other baptised Catholic children;
• Other children who have a sibling at the school at the time of admission;
• Children attending one of the Catholic Feeder Primary Schools in the named parishes;
• Children from other Christian denominations on proof of baptism and written confirmation of the applicant’s membership of the faith community;
• Children of other faiths with confirmation the applicant is a member of their faith group;
• Other children.
12. The School must offer a place to children whose EHC Plan names the School without using the admission criteria.
13. Where the School cannot offer places for all applications within these criteria then the School allocates places to the children who live nearest to the School.
14. The family are not members of the Roman Catholic Church and applied for a place under the Children from other Christian denominations criterion as they belong to the Church of England.
15. The School received more applications than its published admissions number of places. The School refused Miss X’s application for Y. Miss X appealed.
16. Under the local education authority’s allocations procedure, the LEA offered Y a place at another school, School Q. Miss X had not chosen School Q as one of her preferences for Y. This is not a decision by the School and so it does not form part of this investigation.
17. In her written appeal Miss X highlighted why she thought the School would be a good place for Y. Miss X explained School Q presented dangers and difficulties for Y, so she had refused the place offered. Miss X explained the School is near where Y lives. Y has a cousin attending who would walk with her to school. Miss X says in her appeal Y has an EHC Plan. However, I have not seen a copy of an EHC Plan or Statement of Special Educational Needs naming the School. Therefore, the School could not admit Y on those grounds.
18. Miss X’s appeal went before an Independent Appeal Panel. In the papers sent to Miss X and other appellants, the School included its written case for not admitting further pupils.
19. The Panel took advice on whether it could proceed with the general consideration of the School’s case for refusing further places without a School representative. Following the Code of Practice and the Clerk’s advice, the Panel decided it could, but it would only hear the individual appeals if a School representative attended.
20. The School’s written case explained it had exceeded the published admission number of 210 for the academic year. The School had on its roll 1,170 pupils. The statement explained the impact on a school designed for a physical capacity of 1,155. Some facilities it shared with a neighbouring school resulting in increased pupil numbers and movements around the school which had limited physical capacity for them. The statement set out accommodation issues such as toilets and congestion in corridors at lesson changeover. The School had not replaced some staff and that had led to staffing issues.
21. The Panel asked questions about whether the number of pupils had led to accidents in and around the School, raised questions about the School’s finances and how the School spent the pupil premium.
22. The Appeal Panel asked why the School did not offer Y a place. The School said Y had applied for a place under criterion 7 (member of the Church of England).When oversubscribed the School judges this on distance from the School. The last place the School offered under that criterion lived closer than Y’s address for March 2019. Miss X planned a move in June to a home closer to the School. Miss X provided proof of the intended move at the hearing. The Panel’s Chair explained the Panel must consider the address on 1 March 2019.
23. The Panel asked Miss X why she wanted a place at the School. Miss X said because the School has a good reputation and Y’s relative attends the School. Miss X felt Y may benefit from a faith-based girls’ school to help her with her lack of confidence and memory stress. Miss X said School Q, posed dangers for her and gave details of the risk. Following questions from the Panel Miss X explained none of Y’s friends would be attending the School. This would provide a fresh start for her away from bullies. Y could walk to the School. Miss X confirmed she had also listed another Catholic School as her second preference showing her preference for a faith- based school. The Chair then summed up Miss X’s oral evidence for wanting Y to attend the School and confirmed the Panel had before it all relevant information.
24. The Panel met to discuss the appeal and decided the School had properly applied the admissions priority to Y’s application. The last place offered under the same criterion had been to a pupil living closer to the School at 1 March 2019, the key date for admissions. The Panel discussed the reasons for wanting the School. The Panel understood the reasons Miss X did not want Y attending School Q but had to decide if Miss X’s evidence showed the School must admit Y. The Panel decided Miss X had not shown exceptional circumstances for admitting Y which would outweigh the prejudice to the education provided by the School and so refused the appeal.
25. The decision letter explained the procedure followed in deciding the appeal. It gave a summary of the evidence put forward and considered by the Panel. The letter says the Panel applied the prejudice test set out in the Code of Practice. The letter does not detail the Panel Members’ reasons for deciding the appeal did not outweigh the prejudice to the education of the School.

Analysis – was there fault leading to an injustice?

26. My role is to consider if the School and Appeal Panel properly considered the application for a place and appeal against its refusal. My role is not to decide the merits of the case and say whether Y should be offered a place at the School.
27. The School judged the application on criterion 7 of its admissions criteria based on the application presented by Miss X. In so doing I find the School acted without fault for Y did not claim she met any of the higher priority eligibility criteria.
28. The School’s Appeal Panel considered the appeal. It rightly took advice on whether it could continue without the School Representative. It decided it could. I find the Panel acted in line with the Code of Practice and advice and so acted without fault. I also find the decision to continue did not prejudice Y’s appeal because the School representative attended her appeal.
29. At the appeal the Panel heard from both the School and Miss X. It gave Miss X the opportunity to expand on the information she presented in her written appeal including any further information about the risk posed to Y in attending School Q. The Panel then considered the information Miss X put forward. The Panel discussed whether Miss X had shown strong enough grounds for allowing the appeal that outweighed the prejudice to the education of others admitting a further pupil would cause. The Panel decided she had not.
30. I find the Panel considered all relevant information when applying the balancing test and therefore acted without fault.

Back to top

Final decision

31. In completing my investigation, I find the School and Appeal Panel considered the application and appeal without fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman