Hampshire County Council (19 006 965)

Category : Education > School admissions

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 23 Dec 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr F complains about the Independent Appeal Panel’s decision not to admit his child to a junior school. There does not appear to be any fault in the Panel’s decision. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.

The complaint

  1. Mr F complains following his unsuccessful appeal for a place for his child at a junior school.
  2. In particular, he complains the Independent Appeal Panel failed to properly consider his arguments about:
    • a temporary increase in the school’s published admission number (PAN);
    • the use of space in the school; and
    • the head teacher’s assurance that pupils at feeder schools would get places.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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 a school admission appeal panel’s decision 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))
  2. We check the Independent Appeal Panel followed the Code of Practice issued by the Department for Education and 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.
  3. If we are satisfied with a panel’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 considered:
    • Mr F’s comments;
    • all the information presented to the Appeal Panel, the notes taken by the Clerk during the appeal, and the Panel’s decision letter following the appeal; and
    • the School Admissions Appeals Code 2012.
  2. I invited Mr F and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr F applied for a place for his child at a junior school. The school is a community school. The Council is the admission authority and is responsible for admissions and appeals.
  2. Mr F’s application and subsequent appeal were unsuccessful. Mr F complained to the Ombudsman.
  3. The Ombudsman checks the appeal was carried out properly. We do not decide whether Mr F’s child should be given a place at the school.
  4. The School Admission Appeals Code 2012 issued by the Department for Education sets out the process the Independent Appeal Panel must follow when considering an appeal.
  5. The Panel must first consider whether the Council has correctly applied the admission criteria to the application. Mr F’s application was unsuccessful because there were more applications than places at the school and all the places were filled by children who had more priority according to the school’s oversubscription criteria. Mr F’s application was in category 8 – children living outside the school’s catchment but attending a linked infant school. The last place was allocated to a child in category 8 who lives 2.2 miles from the school. Mr F lives 4.6 miles from the school. The Panel was satisfied that the admission criteria were correctly applied.
  6. The Panel must then consider whether the school can accept any more pupils without disadvantaging those already given places. This is known as the case for prejudice. Both the Panel and the parents had an opportunity to question the admission authority representative.
  7. The school agreed a temporary increase in its published admission number with the Council. As a result, the school said it was full and could not take any more pupils. Parents questioned whether this had been done properly and suggested ways they believed the space could be used to accommodate more pupils. They pointed out other schools with less space. There was no fault in the temporary increase in the school’s published admission number. The Panel accepted the school was full and could not take extra pupils. The decision that the school is full is a decision that the Panel is entitled to take, and there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to question it.
  8. The Panel must then consider Mr F’s case for his child to be admitted to the school even though the school is full. This is known as the balancing stage where the prejudice to Mr F’s child if s/he is not given a place is balanced against the prejudice to the school if s/he is.
  9. Mr F explained that his child was distressed at not going to school with peers known since pre-school. He said the head teacher had told parents that children at the feeder school would get places, and as a result he had not applied to any other schools.
  10. The Panel considered Mr F’s arguments but decided the prejudice to his child did not outweigh the prejudice to the school. This is a decision that the Panel is entitled to take and there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to question it.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I find the Panel heard Mr F’s appeal correctly and considered all relevant information before coming to a decision. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault. I have ended my investigation.

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