Summary: Mrs V says a school admission appeals panel acted with fault in the way it considered her case. There is evidence of fault and the Council has been asked to arrange a fresh appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs V, said the admission appeals panel failed to properly consider her appeal for a place at the school for her child, W. 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 that independent appeals panels follow the Code of Practice issued by the Department for Education and that hearings are 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 spoke to Mrs V on the telephone and considered the information she sent with her complaint. I assessed the information received from the Council alongside that. I sent Mrs V and the Council a copy of my draft decision and took comments into account before issuing a decision.

Back to top

What I found

Admission appeals

6. Mrs V applied for a place at School 1 as her first choice in the normal admissions round. She was unsuccessful getting a place for W. She exercised her right to appeal.
7. School admissions appeals are heard by independent panels. These panels must follow a specific two-stage structure set out in the School Admission Appeals Code (2012).
8. The Code says, at Stage One: ‘The panel must consider the following matters in relation to each child that is the subject of an appeal:
1. whether the admission arrangements (including the area’s co-ordinated admission arrangements) complied with the mandatory requirements of the School Admissions Code and Part 3 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998; and
2. whether the admission arrangements were correctly and impartially applied in the case in question’.
9. After this, the panel decides whether allowing additional children into the school would ‘prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources’.
10. If the panel identifies the admission arrangements were unlawful or wrongly applied (and the child would have got a place if this had been done) or that other children could be allowed into the school without prejudice, it must uphold the appeal at this stage. If it does not, the appeal moves to Stage Two.
11. The Code explains what happens at Stage Two. This is the ‘balancing’ stage. At this point, the panel balances the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for the child to be admitted. In doing this, the panel considers the reasons why a place at the school is wanted ‘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.
12. 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.

What happened

13. There is no record of any decision made at Stage One as to whether the admission arrangements were correct and correctly applied. There is no record of a decision, at this point, whether additional children could be allowed into the school. This is fault. It should be clear to people appealing why there is a need for Stage Two. The clerk’s notes quote the Chair saying; ‘Are the panel happy to proceed to Stage Two?’ but nothing about why.
14. The letter sent to the parent after the appeal is much more specific than the notes themselves. The clerk does not have to write down everything that is said – but the notes and decision letter should be a close match. We use the clerk’s notes as evidence. Anything not referenced in the minutes is not in the official record, as is the case here. Therefore, I have no evidence the panel properly considered the issues that it must do at Stage One and this is fault.
15. The appeal moved to Stage Two.
16. At Stage Two the panel considers the evidence and balances it. The notes at the end of the case say there was ‘no overriding reason to allow appeal’. It is not clear what the panel took into account to reach this view. Mrs V did not argue what this school could offer than others could not although she did make a case for why she felt this school would be best for W. The notes go on to say that although it wasn’t an issue for the panel, it felt Mrs V needed to engage with W’s current school. The parent had asked for a place at School 1 so whether she could or should ‘engage with (the) current school’ would not have changed her wish to have a place at School 1.
17. The notes show the panel was ‘concerned that a GP has written recommending a change of school’. It is up to the panel to decide what weight to give to the evidence they are presented with. But if it didn’t want to take this letter into account, the notes needed to say why. Mrs V also provided a letter of support from her MP. This is not mentioned in the clerk’s notes although it is referred to in the decision letter after the appeal. Because the notes do not provide the necessary detail, I cannot say, with any confidence, the issues raised by Mrs V were properly considered at Stage Two.
18. Because I have no evidence to show there was proper consideration of the admission at Stage One, or of the case at Stage Two, I consider this can only be remedied by a fresh appeal.

Agreed action

19. The Council has agreed to arrange a fresh appeal, with a new panel and clerk, for Mrs V. This should be arranged within the next two months.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have found evidence of fault leading to injustice. The Council has agreed to arrange a fresh appeal in order to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman