Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (19 005 220)

Category : Education > School admissions

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 11 Oct 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Miss X complains about the way the Council managed the process which considered her daughter’s school admissions appeal. She says the panel which heard the appeal considered the information her daughter’s father had submitted, but not the information she had submitted. She also questions why her daughter was not awarded a place when some became available, given her position on the waiting list. The Ombudsman has found the Council was not at fault because the panel considered all the information that Miss X submitted in support of her daughter’s case that was relevant to the appeal before deciding to reject it.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Miss X, complains about the way the Council managed the process which considered her daughter’s school admissions appeal. She says the panel which heard the appeal considered the information her daughter’s father had submitted, but not the information she had submitted. She also questions why her daughter was not awarded a place when some became available, given her position on the waiting list.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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

  1. I have:
    • Read Miss X’s complaint and discussed it with her.
    • Considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided.
    • Provided both parties with an opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. 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 comprehensive schools, councils must follow a two-stage process.
  2. 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.
  3. 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

  1. In October 2018, Miss X applied for a secondary school place for her daughter, Y. At the time, Y was aged 12 and her preference was to be admitted to the same faith school that her older sister was attending.
  2. At the beginning of March 2019, the Council wrote to Miss X and notified her it had been unable to offer a place at Y’s preferred school. She and Y’s father subsequently made separate appeals to the Council.
  3. In her appeal letter, Miss X stated she was a single mother working full-time and would be more content and less stressed knowing that both her daughters were attending the same school. She added the school was closest to the family home and noted her daughter’s achievements at primary school, which had provided a letter supporting her appeal. She also stated she did not send a faith reference form in support of the initial application as she was not aware that she needed to. However, she pointed out that Y attended church regularly and she had now submitted a copy of the form. Regarding this last point, she asserted that her daughter should not be punished for her lack of knowledge or shortcomings about the form.
  4. In his appeal, Y’s father stated he wanted his daughter to attend her preferred school as her older sister was already there. He said he wanted her to be educated at a faith school and said the school she had been offered had a bad reputation, adding she was distressed at the thought of going there. Like Miss X, he also highlighted Y’s achievements at primary school.
  5. In mid-May 2019, Miss X and Y’s father both attended the panel hearing which considered the appeal. The clerk’s notes detailing the hearing set out the school’s case and show it reasoned Miss X would have been aware of the need to submit a faith reference form, given her other daughter was attending the school and information packs were provided to all prospective students. The notes also outline the parents’ case and show Miss X stated she did not submit the form because of a family bereavement. In addition, they show the panel considered that fact that Y was baptised and attended church, as well as her achievements at primary school.
  6. At the end of the month, the Council wrote to Miss X to notify her the appeal had been unsuccessful. It detailed the school’s case and said the panel had concluded the admission arrangements were properly implemented. It also concluded the admission of further pupils would prejudice the provision of efficient education and use of resources. The Council then detailed the case put forward by Miss X and Y’s father in support of the appeal, but noted the panel had concluded the reasons given were not sufficient to uphold it.
  7. At the end of June 2019, Miss X complained to the Ombudsman about this matter. She says the Council did not consider the information she provided and feels it should have as she initially applied for the school place and her daughter lives with her, not her father. However, she states the panel would not listen to her when she tried to explain this.
  8. She says the panel’s decision has caused her daughter significant distress and she wants the Council to grant her a second appeal so it can consider her case in full.

Analysis

  1. I reviewed the information Miss X submitted in support of the 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 and Y’s father at the end of May 2019. Her case was based on Y being able to attend the same school as her sister, the proximity of the school to their home, her daughter’s achievements and church attendance, and the reasons she was unable to submit the faith reference form in support of the original application. The clerk notes and decision letter indicate the panel considered this information along with the school’s admission criteria before it decided not to uphold the appeal. Therefore, I cannot find the Council was at fault as the evidence suggests the panel did consider the information that Miss X submitted in support of the appeal.
  2. Miss X states that during the hearing, the panel stopped her from explaining why her appeal submission should be considered instead of Y’s father, stating it was not her turn to speak. She says this made her feel anxious for the rest of the hearing. As I have noted, the evidence shows the panel did consider the key information in her appeal, even if the way the hearing was conducted indicated it did not. In addition, I understand the panel’s direct approach might cause some parents to feel anxious, but this does not mean its approach is wrong. It has limited time to determine whether a child’s case is stronger than the one presented by the school. Therefore, it may interrupt parents if the points they make are irrelevant or have already been considered. It does this to ensure they are able to maximise their time and present their strongest possible case in support of the appeal. In this instance, I am content Miss X was given sufficient opportunity to present her case during the hearing and that she was not prevented from doing so.
  3. Miss X has also questioned why her daughter was not awarded a place at the school when six became available, given that Y was in sixth position on the waiting list. I have found that five places became available before the appeal hearing, when Y was 12th on the waiting list. The child first on the list declined a place, therefore those in positions two to six were allocated the five places. This meant Y subsequently moved six places up the waiting list to position six. After all the appeal hearings took place, she was re-ranked to position nine.
  4. In summary, I understand the reasons why Miss X wants her daughter to go to her chosen school and appreciate this has been a difficult time for her family. However, the evidence suggests the panel properly considered the appeal before deciding not to uphold it. Therefore, I cannot find it was at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Council was not at fault because the panel considered all the information that Miss X submitted in support of her daughter’s case that was relevant to the appeal before deciding to reject it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings