Summary: Ms X complains about the school admissions appeal panel’s decision not to admit her daughter to a school. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the appeal panel considered these matters.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Ms X complains about the school admissions appeal panel’s decision not to admit her daughter to School 1. Ms X says her daughter already attends the school’s pre-school and she does not wish to move her to a different school.

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 a 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. In reaching my view of the complaint I took account of:
• The current admissions and appeals code
• Information provided by Ms X with her complaint
• The admissions and appeal documents provided by the Council in response to my enquiries
• The clerk’s notes of the appeal hearing
• Invited comments from Ms X and the Council on my draft decision of the complaint

Back to top

What I found

5. The School Admissions Appeal Code 2012 sets out a two-stage process for considering appeals. In the first stage the panel examines the decision to refuse admission and considers whether it was made properly. It also has to decide whether the admission of additional children would “prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources” for those already at the school.
6. If a panel decides that prejudice would be caused it goes on to the second stage. In this stage the panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for the child to be admitted. It must decide whether the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice.

What happened

7. School 1 is a Community School. The Council is the Admission Authority and is responsible for admission and appeals. Its sets the published admission number of children (PAN) admitted to a school each year with the governing bodies. The Council publishes the PAN on its website and in information given to parents each year.
8. If the number of applications exceeds the planned admissions number, the Council ranks applications according to the oversubscription criteria in order of priority. The published admission arrangements for School 1 prioritised applications into 10 criteria. Application are prioritised under the criteria and places allocated in order of criteria. So, places are offered to children under category one, followed by category two and so on.
9. Ms X’s daughter attended the pre-school of School 1 and applied for a place for her daughter the Reception class of the school for September 2019. School 1 is not Ms X’s catchment school. The Council refused the application as the school was oversubscribed. Ms X’s application was considered under criterion 10 and so did not have a high enough ranking in the oversubscription criteria to qualify for a place. The Council offered Ms X’s daughter a place at School 2, the catchment school.
10. Ms X appealed against the decision and attended an appeal panel hearing in July 2019.
11. The appeal papers show the Council offered places to 21 children for Reception year. This was the published admission number (PAN) of 21.
12. The clerk’s notes of the appeal show the panel was satisfied the Council had complied with admissions law for School 1, the laws were correctly and impartially applied, and that the school was full. The Council described the pressures on space and resources School 1 was facing and the problems that would be caused if it admitted extra pupils. The panel agreed that admitting more children would prejudice the education of others.
13. It then went on to consider Ms X’s case. This was that her daughter was happy and settled at School 1, the distance travelled to the school was not an issue and Ms X intended to move nearer to the school. Ms X therefore wanted her daughter to remain and attend School 1.
14. The panel decided the prejudice to School 1 outweighed the prejudice to the child and the appeal was unsuccessful. The Council wrote to Ms X explaining the decision.
15. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman. She considered the hearing was not an ‘unbiased appeal’ as the Council’s presenting officer clearly had an ‘issue’ with the head teacher. Ms X said a panel member asked about Year 3 admissions which she did not consider relevant as she was applying for Reception year. Ms X seeks a fresh appeal with a new panel.

My assessment

16. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the appeal panel followed the Admissions Code. We do this by examining the panel’s papers and 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. It is for the panel to decide what weight to give the evidence. As long as it considered the evidence put forward properly, the Ombudsman cannot say what conclusion it should have come to. If we find fault which calls the panel’s decision into question, we may ask for a new appeal hearing.
17. I am satisfied from the Clerk’s notes of the hearing and the appeal decision letter the appeal panel followed the two-stage process for considering the appeal as required.
18. The notes of the hearing, including the panel’s decision–making, show the panel considered evidence about the pressures on School 1 and asked questions about this.
19. The Council explained the head teacher was not at the appeal hearing and so there were no ‘issues’ between the presenting officer and the head teacher for the panel to consider. The Clerk’s notes show the presenting officer was responding to questions about the capacity of the school and the way the school was set up when referring to conversations with the head teacher. The panel member asked about Year 3 pupils as part of a general overview about capacity at the school.
20. So, the concerns Ms X raised referred to discussions about the wider context of the school and the number of pupils currently attending. The panel decided after considering the evidence presented that admitting further pupils would be detrimental to pupils already at the school. I have therefore not found evidence of fault in the way the panel decided the prejudice issue at stage 1.
21. I have gone on to look at how the panel dealt with Ms X’s case at stage 2. The Clerk’s notes and the decision letter record Ms X’s discussions with the panel at the hearing. I can see they discussed Ms X’s wish for her daughter to remain at the school, the distance she travelled and her plan to move into the area. The panel considered this evidence but decide it did not outweigh the prejudice to School 1.
22. While I appreciate Ms X disagrees, the panel was entitled to make this decision. I am satisfied the panel properly considered Ms X’s appeal and there was no fault from the evidence I have seen so far. There are therefore no grounds for the Ombudsman to question the panel’s decision.

Final decision

23. I am completing my investigation. There is no fault in the way a school admissions appeal panel considered Ms X’s appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman