Summary: There is no fault in the way the independent admission appeals panel arranged by Hampshire County Council considered Ms F’s appeal for a place at Q School.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms F, says that there was fault in the way an independent admission appeals panel considered her appeal for a place for her son at Q School. Specifically she says it failed to properly consider that:
1. the family is a forces family that was relocated to the area outside the normal admissions round so should have been treated under the proper, process for this;
2. the admissions authority provided the panel with inaccurate information regarding the home to school distance and the real distance is around two and half miles which is too far for a 7 year old to walk; and
3. the family was allocated a faith school which they do not want.

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 considered the information provided with the complaint and we made written enquiries of the Council. I considered all the information before reaching a draft decision on the complaint.
5. I gave the Council and Ms F the opportunity to comment on my draft decision before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

6. Independent school admission appeals 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.

7. The panel must then consider whether admitting another child would prejudice the education of others.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. The published admission arrangements for the schools that Ms F applied for prioritised applications into nine criteria. Applications were prioritised under the criteria and places allocated in order of the criteria. So, places were first offered to children under category one, followed by category two and so on. Ms F’s application was considered under criterion eight. Straight line home to school distance measurement was used as the tie-breaker.
11. The closing date for on time applications for primary school places was 15 January 2019.
12. Paragraph 2.18 of the School Admissions Code says that “For families of service personnel with a confirmed posting to their area, or crown servants returning from overseas to live in that area, admission authorities must:
1. allocate a place in advance of the family arriving in the area provided the application is accompanied by an official letter that declares a relocation date and a Unit postal address or quartering area address when considering the application against their oversubscription criteria. This must include accepting a Unit postal address or quartering area address for a service child. Admission authorities must not refuse a service child a place because the family does not currently live in the area, or reserve blocks of places for these children;
2. ensure that arrangements in their area support the Government’s commitment to removing disadvantage for service children. Arrangements must be appropriate for the area and be described in the local authority’s composite prospectus”.

What happened

13. Ms F applied for a school place for a junior school place for her son in year 3 from September 2019. Ms F moved to the area in December 2018 and submitted her application by the deadline for the usual admissions round in January 2019.
14. In April 2019 the Council wrote to Ms F to say that her application for a place at Q School was unsuccessful and she was offered a place at W School which was the nearest available school with a place. Later paperwork confirms Ms F’s home to school distance for Q School was around 0.85 miles and the furthest distance offered was 0.69 miles.
15. Ms F submitted an appeal against the refusal of a place at Q School. In her appeal she confirmed her husband was a member of the armed forces and went on to say the grounds of her appeal were:
• they were a military family who had only recently moved to the area and her son had made friends in Q School infant section and it would benefit her son to remain with the group of friends he had made by moving with them into Q School junior section;
• she would not accept a place at the school offered as it was a faith school that she did not want as they are not a faith family;
• the school offered was too far (1.59 miles on straight line measurement and 2.4 miles actual walking distance) and would involve four hours a day walking to and from school; and
• being a military family Ms F said her children were already disrupted every few years and she wanted to avoid further disruption for her son by enabling him to progress to junior school with the friends he had already made.
16. Shortly after, the Council provided Ms F with a copy of the admission authority’s case and a copy of her appeal grounds. The admission appeals case confirmed that all places in year 3 had been offered under the published admission arrangements and the furthest distance offered was 0.69 miles.
17. The appeal was arranged for early July comprising a group presentation to all parents appealing for the admission authority to present its case as to why it was full and could not accept another child and the panel’s consideration of this and for appellants and panel members to ask questions for the admissions authority about the case. In its letter to Ms F about this the Council said that it the panel accepted that the admission authority successfully made its case that the school was full and could not accept another pupil the panel would then go on to hear individual appeals and consider whether individual cases outweighed the admission authority’s case. The Council told Ms F that her individual appeal was scheduled to take place after the group hearing.
18. The notes of the group hearing for the admission authority’s case show that the admission authority’s representative verbally presented the case to the panel. The panel members and parents asked questions which the admission authority’s representative answered. I have not seen the notes of the panel’s deliberations of the admission authority’s case but it appears the panel accepted that the admission authority had successfully made its case and so it moved on to consider individual appeals. I can see that there was a lot of information for the panel to have taken account of to reach a decision on the admission authority’s case and, whilst not provided to me in the notes of the hearing, its reasoning is provided in the letter to Ms F following her appeal.
19. The notes of Ms F’s Individual hearing confirm that:
• Ms F’s application was considered under criterion eight of the admission arrangements and the final place was offered under criterion six. Essentially this means that Ms F lived further away than the last placed offered that was affected by the distance criteria;
• The notes refer to issues related to “paperwork”. I am unsure what there refer to and have been unable to contact Ms F to discuss this with her. However, I note that Ms F said it made no difference to the appeal. It seems to have related to paperwork issued at the time of the school offer letters. It was confirmed that Ms F was not offered Q School and was instead offered a faith school around an hour’s walk from the family’s home;
• Ms F told the panel about how long it would take her to get to the allocated school and was advised to discuss with the transport team if the appeal was unsuccessful;
• There was further discussion about Ms F’s son being nervous and sensitive hence why she wanted him to go to school with children he knew;
• In summing up at the end of the hearing Ms F said that she couldn’t get her son to the allocated school and didn’t want him disrupted by having to change to a new junior school in September.
20. The notes of the panel’s deliberations confirms that the decision to refuse the appeal was unanimous but that one of the panel members queried whether expecting Ms F and her son to walk for an hour to school was reasonable. This did not alter his view that the appeal should not be upheld however.
21. The clerk to the panel wrote to Ms F shortly after to tell her that her appeal was unsuccessful.

Was the Council at fault and did this cause injustice?

22. There is no evidence of fault in the way this appeal was handled. The clerk’s letter details the reasons the panel accepted the admissions authority had successfully made its case as to why it could not accommodate another pupil and this demonstrates the panel properly took account of the information it had on this. In moving on to consider Ms F’s appeal the panel correctly considered whether the admission arrangements had been properly applied to Ms F’s application and decided they had: it seems clear that the last place offered in the initial round of offers was to a person who lived closer to the school and this accords with the published admission arrangements. I do not believe that the arrangements provided for in paragraph 2.18 of the Admissions Code applied to Ms F’s application as she made an on-time application for a place after she had already moved to the area. The panel then moved on to the balancing stage of the appeal: to consider whether Ms F’s reasons for wanting a place at the school outweighed the admissions authority’s case that it could not accommodate another pupil. The decision was unanimous that it did not. Again the clerk’s letter details the main points of Ms F’s case demonstrating the panel was aware of these points but decided Ms F’s case did not outweigh the admissions authority’s.
23. The panel did note the distance to the allocated school but this did not influence its decision. I do not consider the admission authority gave the panel misleading information about the distance to the allocated school. The way the Council measures for allocation purposes is by straight line distance and this was the information it provided to the panel. The panel recognised that the walking distance was further.
24. I recognise that Ms F was unhappy that she had been allocated a faith school but the panel’s role is to consider whether the case put forward about why the appellant wants a place in the school appealed for outweighs the admission authority’s case, rather than the reasons s/he doesn’t want the school allocated. I consider the panel did consider the reasons Ms F wanted the appealed for school rather than the reasons she did not want the allocated school as it should have done. It would be for Ms F to speak to the Council about available places at a non-faith school.
25. It is not my role to consider whether the panel’s decision was right or wrong but to consider whether there was fault in the way it considered the appeal. For the reasons given I do not consider there is evidence of fault in the way the panel considered the appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

26. There was no fault in the way the panel considered Ms F’s appeal for a place at Q School.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman