Summary: Mrs F complains about the school admissions appeal panel’s decision not to admit her son to New College Leicester. The Ombudsman has found no fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs F complains about the school admissions appeal panel’s decision not to admit her son to New College Leicester. Mrs F says the school her son was offered, School Z, is unsuitable as it is too far away, and she cannot travel there due to work commitments and having to take her other child to a different school.

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 spoke to Mrs F about her complaint and considered:
• the admission appeal papers and the Clerk's notes of the panel hearing
• the School Admission Appeals Code 2012
• the School Admissions Code 2014
• the School's admission arrangements
5. I sent Mrs F and the Council my draft decision and considered the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

6. The School Admission Appeals Code 2012 sets out a two-stage process for considering appeals. In the first stage the panel examines the decision to refuse admission and considers whether it was made properly. It also has to decide whether the admission of additional children would "prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources" for those already at the school.
7. If the panel decides that prejudice would be caused it goes on to the second stage. In this stage the panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant's case for the child to be admitted. It must decide whether the appellant's case outweighs the prejudice.

What happened

8. New College Leicester is a Foundation School. The Governors are the Admission Authority and are responsible for admissions and appeals. The local authority administers the admissions process on the Governors’ behalf.
9. Mrs F’s son, R, was due to start in Year 7 in September 2019. She made a late application for a place at the School, which is not R’s catchment school. The application was refused because the school was oversubscribed. R was offered a place at School Z.
10. Mrs F appealed against this decision and attended the panel hearing in June 2019.
11. The appeal papers show that the School had offered places to 200 children for Year 7. This was above its published admission number (PAN) of 180. The School said this was a temporary over-allocation due to high demand for places. The School anticipated that some offers would not be accepted and it would admit 180 children.
12. The notes show the panel was satisfied the School had complied with admissions law, the laws were correctly and impartially applied, and that the school was full. The School described the pressures on space and resources it was facing and the problems that would be caused if it admitted extra pupils. The panel agreed that admitting more children would prejudice the education of others.
13. It then went on to consider Mrs F's case, which was that the School was closer to R’s home than the school that had been offered. Mrs F explained the difficulties her family would face if R did not get a place at the School. School Z was too far away for R to walk as it was 3.2 miles from his home; he would need to take two buses and the journey was almost an hour. Mrs F said both parents worked and had another child attending a different school. It was therefore not possible for them to get R to School Z. Mrs F therefore wanted R to attend the School.
14. Mrs F said she had been given incorrect distances from her home to the relevant schools. The panel confirmed the distances had been checked and the correct ones taken into consideration during the hearing.
15. The panel decided the prejudice to the School outweighed the prejudice to the child and the appeal was unsuccessful. The appeal panel wrote to Mrs F with its decision.
16. Mrs F complained to the Ombudsman. She said the situation had been very stressful and the local authority had not communicated properly with them.

My findings

17. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the appeal panel followed the Admissions Code. We do this by examining the panel’s papers and the notes taken by the Clerk during the hearing. We do not have the power to overturn the panel's decision, and we cannot give a child a place at the school. It is for the panel to decide what weight to give the evidence. As long as it considered the evidence put forward properly, the Ombudsman cannot say what conclusion it should have come to. If we find fault which calls the panel's decision into question, we may ask for a new appeal hearing.
18. I am satisfied from the Clerk’s notes of the hearing and the appeal decision letter that the appeal panel followed the two-stage process for considering the appeal as required.
19. The notes of the hearing, including the panel's decision-making, show that the panel decided that the Governors had correctly applied the admission criteria and considered evidence about the pressures on the School. It decided that admitting further pupils would be detrimental to pupils already at the school.
20. I have considered the School’s approach of offering more places than its PAN. The Admissions Code says an admissions authority can offer and admit more children than the PAN. So there is no fault if it offers these places fairly and in line with its published over-subscription criteria.
21. I have therefore not found evidence of fault in the way the panel decided the prejudice issue at stage 1.
22. I have gone on to look at how the panel dealt with Mrs F’s case at stage 2. The Clerk’s notes and the decision letter record Mrs F’s discussions with the panel at the hearing. I can see they discussed the distance from R’s home, that both parents worked, and that they had another child attending a different school. The panel considered this evidence but decided it did not outweigh the prejudice to the School.
23. Whilst I appreciate Mrs F disagrees, it was entitled to make this decision. I am satisfied that the panel properly considered Mrs F’s appeal and there was no fault. There are therefore no grounds for the Ombudsman to question the panel’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

24. There was no fault. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman