Summary: Mr F complains a school admission appeals panel failed to properly consider his appeal for a place for his son, G. There is no evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr F complained a school admission appeals panel failed to properly consider his appeal for a place for his son, G.

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 Appeal 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 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

5. I spoke to Mr F on the telephone and considered the information, which had been sent to us. I have accessed the school admissions appeals code. I sent Mr F and the Council a copy of this draft decision in order to take any comments they made into account before reaching a decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Mr F applied for one school (that was not his son’s catchment school) in his original application. He did not apply on the basis of social or medical needs although this was extremely important to his case. Mr F made a late change of preference to his catchment school. If he had applied on time, G would have been given a place. Unfortunately, by the time Mr F applied, the school was full. Once he received the refusal of a place, Mr F was able to ask for an appeal.
7. 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.
8. 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.
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. However, the Ombudsman looks for evidence that the judgement reached is based on relevant matters.

Mr F’s appeal

10. The panel decided the admission arrangements complied with the law and that the admission arrangements were properly applied in G’s case. I consider it had good reason to conclude this.
11. The panel also concluded the school was full and could not admit any more pupils. On offer day the school had made 6 offers above the number it would usually accept. Three of those pupils had dropped out. The school said it made those offers because around six parents would not take up places. As only three of those places had been turned down the school would have had a strategy how it would deal with those additional children.
12. On the balance of probabilities, however, given there were 312 pupils in every year group, the panel would have considered the school did not have the general capacity to offer any more places. I consider the panel, then, had good grounds to say the school was full and admitting another child would prejudice the efficient and effective education of others.
13. The panel went on to consider Mr F’s individual case. The school admissions appeals code says panels 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’. Mr F did not make this case.
14. Mr F made a number of arguments to the panel. Mr F said his son suffered from a medical condition and he was concerned about the child travelling on his own and needing to be close to him if there was a medical emergency (although the child had not had a medical emergency since 2017 and all schools would be expected to manage medication). Mr F says the panel told him it could not consider medical evidence although this took the form of a letter confirming G’s diagnosis; it was not an argument that G needed to attend a specific school or that he needed to be geographically close to Mr F in case there was an emergency.
15. There should have been evidence in the meeting notes that the panel had decided not to consider medical information as there is nothing in the school admissions appeals code that would prevent it from so doing. This is not fault, however, as the evidence does not point to the need for a specific school.
16. Mr F said it would not be possible for him to transport G to school and his other children to their school because they were so far apart and yet started at the same time. The panel noted that the allocated school had a free bus service. Getting children to different schools at the same time is something many working parents experience and the panel would not consider this an argument for a child to be given a place at a specific school.
17. The panel concluded the prejudice to the school outweighed the prejudice caused to G. It decided not to give G a place. The letter sets out Mr F’s case in some detail. There is no evidence of fault.

Following the appeal

18. Mr F told me that a doctor had said G needs to be located close to his parents and that it would not be advisable for him to walk any distance to school or to a school bus. There is no written evidence of this and I have advised Mr F to seek this evidence so the Council can consider it as new information.
19. Mr F has turned down a place at the allocated school. His son is now without a school place. This suggests Mr F has to provide G with appropriate full-time education (in accordance with the Education Act 1996).
20. Mr F does not wish to home educate G. He says he is in contact with the Council in order to identify a suitable school for G, which is appropriate. He is able to apply for any other schools and ask for an appeal if he is unsuccessful obtaining a place. I note G is on the waiting list for the school Mr F appealed to as well.

Back to top

Final decision

21. There is no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman