Summary: Mrs 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 did not properly consider the information she submitted in support of it, despite there being evidence the admissions criteria had not been applied correctly. The Ombudsman has found the Council was at fault because the panel decided Mrs X’s appeal without having all the information it needed to do so. Her daughter may have been offered a place at her preferred school if the distances and routes used to determine the initial application had been calculated incorrectly. Therefore, we recommend the Council arranges a new hearing so the appeal can be reheard and the panel can consider whether the initial calculations were wrong. We have also made a service improvement recommendation to prevent the fault we have identified from reoccurring. The Council has agreed to carry out these recommendations.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Mrs 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 did not properly consider the information she submitted in support of it, despite there being evidence the admissions criteria had not been applied correctly.

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 have:
• Read Mrs X’s complaint and discussed it with her.
• Considered the documentation provided by the Council about the case.
• Provided both parties with an opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

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 state and comprehensive 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.”

8. The admissions criteria for Mrs X’s preferred school states places will be allocated in the following order, if the applications received outnumber the places available:
• Looked after and previously looked after children receive first priority, then;
• Children with an exceptional medical need or some welfare consideration;
• Children with a sibling already attending the school;
• Those children with evidence of church affiliation (if relevant);
• Children eligible to receive the service premium;
• And finally, the child’s relative proximity from and ease of access to the school.
9. The Council calculates relative proximity by subtracting the walking distance from the child’s home to their nearest school from the walking distance between the home and the school being applied for. Its guidance says:

“This figure will give the difference in distance that one child would have to travel compared to another, and so establish a priority ranking. This will mean that those living furthest from an alternative school will have priority for their nearest school.”

10. Its guidance also states walking distances are measured using a computerised mapping system and walking routes:

“… are deemed to be along recognised lit, paved routes which, in general, are overlooked by houses and as such are likely to be relatively safe to walk. Unlit, unmade-up shortcuts are not taken into account in calculating walking distances, even if they are public rights of way”.

What happened

11. Mrs X’s daughter is four years old. She is scheduled to start primary school in September 2019.
12. In mid-October 2018, Mrs X’s husband submitted an application to the Council for a place at School Y.
13. In mid-April 2019, the Council wrote to Mrs X and informed her it was unable to offer a place at School Y. However, it offered a place at School Z, Mrs X’s second choice.
14. Mrs X subsequently submitted an appeal to the Council about the decision not to offer a place at School Y. She said her daughter had been attending nursery at School Y since September 2018 and had taken a long time to settle there, adding she would struggle to deal with a change of setting. She stated School Y was within walking distance of the family home but School Z was not and questioned how the distances and routes were calculated.
15. At the end of June 2019, the appeal hearing took place. In their notes, the clerk documenting the appeal states there was some uncertainty about how the walking distances were calculated when the original application was determined. Consequently, it was acknowledged that a place may have been offered if the distance was calculated incorrectly. Nevertheless, the panel decided unanimously to reject the appeal after concluding the admission arrangements had been correctly applied.
16. Mrs X states she raised the issue of distance with the Council’s Presenting Officer immediately before the hearing took place. She says the Officer said a place would be granted if the calculations were wrong, but this would need to be checked on another day as the individual who had access to the mapping system was not available. She recalls the matter was brought to the attention of the panel and all those present agreed the Officer would check the calculations at a later date.
17. At the beginning of July 2019, the Council wrote to Mrs X and said her appeal had been unsuccessful. It detailed her case and noted the distance calculations were “subject to verification” outside the hearing. It also noted the admission arrangements had been “correctly and impartially applied” in the case.
18. Two days later, Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman about these matters. She states the Presenting Officer promised her daughter would be admitted to School Y if it was found the distance or routes had been miscalculated. She says the Officer subsequently confirmed there had been a miscalculation, but a place at School Y was not offered. She adds the Officer then threatened to rescind the offer of a place at School Z after she complained about the matter. She also feels the appeal panel’s decision was influenced by the miscalculations.
19. She says the Council’s actions have caused her a great deal of stress and have prevented her daughter from attending her preferred school. To remedy the situation, she wants it to allocate her daughter a place at School Y, as agreed by the Presenting Officer.

Analysis

20. The role of the appeal panel is to provide oversight of the admissions process. It does this in two stages. At stage one, the School Admissions Appeals Code states a panel must uphold an appeal if:

“… it finds that the admission arrangements did not comply with admissions law or had not been correctly and impartially applied, and the child would have been offered a place if the arrangements had complied or had been correctly and impartially applied…”

21. In this case, the panel decided the admission arrangements had been applied correctly despite there being some uncertainty about the way the walking distances and routes were calculated. I understand the person who had access to the mapping system was not available that day to check the calculations, but the panel should not have decided the appeal if it did not have all the information it needed to do so. It should have adjourned the hearing to a later date so these calculations could be made, thus enabling it to make an informed decision. However, it deferred to the Presenting Officer instead and did not provide the level of oversight it should have.
22. Consequently, I have found the Council was at fault because the panel decided Mrs X’s appeal without having all the information it needed to do so. Her daughter may have been offered a place at School Y if the distances and routes had been calculated incorrectly. Therefore, I recommend the Council arranges a new hearing so the appeal can be reheard and the panel can consider whether the initial calculations were wrong. I have also made a service improvement recommendation to prevent the fault I have identified from reoccurring.

Agreed action

23. The Council has agreed to write to Mrs X to schedule a new appeal hearing. It will invite her to submit written evidence in support of the appeal and ensure:
• The clerk, presenting officer and panel members that are appointed have no prior connection to the case.
• The panel follows the School Admissions Appeals Code.
• The panel has access to all the information it needs to decide the appeal.
• The panel reviews the distance and route calculations used to determine the initial application and considers whether the admissions arrangements were correctly applied.
• The panel upholds the appeal and offers a place if it finds the admission arrangements were not correctly applied and Mrs X’s daughter would have been offered a place if they had been.
• When considering the appeal, the number of children on the roll in Year one at School Y is treated by the new panel as being the same as it was at the time of the first hearing. For example, I understand 30 places had been allocated at School Y as per the Published Admission Number (PAN) when the first appeal was heard. Therefore, if other appeals were granted and the number of children on the roll increased, the new panel should consider the initial number of 30, not the increased number. This is so Mrs X’s appeal is not unfairly disadvantaged by the Council’s fault.
24. The Council has also agreed to send a copy of this final decision statement to all appeal clerks and panel members so they can read it and learn from our findings. In a covering email or brief, it should stress the importance of following the School Admissions Appeals Code and ensuring panel members consider all the information relevant to an appeal before making their decision. Likewise, it should advise panels to adjourn hearings to a later date if they do not have all the information they need to decide an appeal on the day it is heard, so this information can be obtained and considered.
25. The Council will carry out these recommendations no later than two weeks after the date of this final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

26. The Council was at fault because the panel decided Mrs X’s appeal without having all the information it needed to do so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman