Summary: Miss F complained the admission appeals panel failed to properly consider her appeal for her son, G. There is evidence of fault and the school has agreed to arrange a fresh appeal.

The complaint

1. Miss F said the admission appeals panel failed to properly consider her appeal for a place at the school for her son, G. She asked the Ombudsman to consider whether there was administrative fault in the appeal panel’s actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a school admission appeal 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3))
3. We check the independent appeals panel followed the Code of Practice issued by the Department for Education and that the hearing was fair. We do this by examining 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. If we find fault, which calls the Panel’s decision into question, we may ask for a new appeal hearing.
4. If we are satisfied with the school’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

5. I considered the information submitted by Miss F with her complaint and spoke to her on the telephone. I made enquiries with the school and assessed its response in the light of the School Admissions Appeals Code (2012). I sent Miss F and the school a copy of my draft decision in order to take account of any comments they made before issuing a decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Miss F applied for a place at the school for G, where his brother already attended. To do this, she applied to the Council on a standard application form and had to fill out a supplementary information form and hand it to the school. G was not allocated a place because the supplementary information form was not considered even though Miss F says she handed it in. Once she received the refusal of a place, Miss F was able to ask for an appeal.
7. Prior to the appeal hearings, the school gave places to a further eight children. This is because although their supplementary information forms were not processed at the time places were allocated, the parents had receipts for them. The school suggests these children would have been given places had the supplementary information forms been processed correctly.
8. Appeals are carried out by independent panels. These panels must follow the school admissions appeals code (2012) when considering an appeal. The panel must consider whether:
1. the admission arrangements comply with the law;
2. the admission arrangements were properly applied to the case; and,
3. whether admitting another child would prejudice the education of others.
9. If the panel finds there would be prejudice it must 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.
10. 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. However, the Ombudsman looks for evidence that the judgement reached is sound and based on relevant matters.

Stage One

11. The panel decided the admission arrangements complied with the law and that the admission arrangements were properly applied. The panel did not decide, at this point, whether the school was full and whether there would be prejudice if additional pupils were allowed in. There is nothing minuted about this by the clerk at Stage One. This is fault. The Code is clear the panel must make a decision on prejudice at this point.
12. The panel moved to Stage Two.

Stage Two

13. At this stage, the panel has to consider each case for a child to be admitted.
14. The code says; ‘In multiple appeals, the panel must not compare the individual cases when deciding whether an appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school’. Therefore, we would expect panels to make decisions after each case as to whether an individual case outweighed the prejudice to the school or not. The code highlights that; ‘where the panel finds there are more cases which outweigh prejudice than the school can admit, it must then compare the cases and uphold those with the strongest case for admission’. It should be clear, then, how many pupils a school ‘can admit’ at the end of Stage One if the panel is going to compare cases. The code continues; ‘Where a certain number of children could be admitted without causing prejudice, the panel must uphold the appeals of at least that number of children’. If the panel decides, at Stage One, the school can admit x appeals then x children should be given places.
15. The key issue advanced by Miss F in her appeal was that she had submitted the supplementary information form to the school. Her case was that she had handed this into the school’s office on parents’ evening. She had no proof, because she says she did this for her older child two years prior and had not received a receipt. The school disagreed. The school said it would provide receipts to parents, and would have provided a receipt to her, although this was not mentioned in its policy. The panel had been made aware, in other cases, receipts were not given. In other cases, receipts had been given but forms were not found. Nevertheless, the panel was able to consider this and reach a view.
16. Because children had been admitted to the school without going to appeal, and Miss F identified one other parent at the appeal she thought was in the same position as her (who had handed the supplementary information form to school but did not get a receipt), the supplementary information form was her focus.
17. On her application form, that the panel had a copy of, Miss F had mentioned a safeguarding issue as a reason for G going to that school. No one on the panel asked her about this. This is fault.
18. The panel did not make a decision on Miss F’s case, after she had presented it, and did not consider whether the prejudice to the child outweighed the prejudice to the school. This is fault.
     

Panel deliberation

19. After all the presentations were completed, the panel decided the school had demonstrated prejudice, which is what it should have decided beforehand at Stage One. This is fault. There was no decision on how many children might be admitted at that point. This is fault.
20. However, the panel then compared each case even though they had not identified which had proven prejudice beforehand. This is fault. The panel came to a decision as to which children it thought should be admitted. The number of children the panel said the school could allow was identified at the end of the Stage Two decision-making i.e. after the panel had compared all the cases, not before. This is fault. There is no rationale given for the number the panel decided could be admitted so it is unclear whether G could have been given a place. This is fault.

Agreed action

21. For the school to hold a fresh appeal for Miss F. Her case was not considered properly, in terms of the safeguarding issue which should have been explored. Further, there was no reason given why G could not have a place in terms of the number of children that could be admitted. The school should do this within a month of the date of my decision.
22. The school should ensure panels are aware they need to identify prejudice at the end of Stage One and conduct Stage Two accordingly. Panels cannot compare cases unless they have decided the school can admit a certain number. Even when panels do compare cases, they should only compare those where they have already found prejudice to the child that outweighs prejudice to the school. The school should do this within three months of the date of my decision.

Back to top

Final decision

23. There is evidence of fault leading to injustice. The school has agreed to hold a fresh appeal for Miss F as a remedy to the injustice. I have also asked it to make a procedural change in terms of the information it provides to panels.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman