Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint that the admission authority for a Voluntary Aided school refused his application for a school place for his son, and the school admission appeal panel refused his appeal. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the part of the authority or the panel.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr A, complains that the admission authority for a Voluntary Aided school refused his application for a school place for his son, and the school admission appeal panel refused his appeal against the decision.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered what Mr A has said in support of his complaint and in response to my draft decision. I have also considered the application and appeal documents provided by the admission authority.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr A applied for a place for his son at a Voluntary Aided school for admission to the Reception year group. His daughter already attends the school. The admission authority received more applications than the school has places available, so it applied its oversubscription policy. It refused Mr A’s application. Mr A appealed against the admission authority’s decision.
5. Mr A believes the admission authority was at fault in refusing to allocate his son a place, particularly as the school staff led him to believe his application would be successful.
6. As the part of the admission process for the school, applicants have the option of submitting a supplementary information form (SIF). When completed and signed by a religious minister, it can be used by the admission authority to decide whether to consider the application under one of the oversubscription categories which gives priority to the children of regular worshippers. Mr A says his wife completed a SIF and handed it in at the school. The admission authority did not receive the SIF. Mr A contends that this is because the school lost it. He further contends that, because the school lost the SIF, his son’s application was placed in the wrong category and, as a result, he missed out on a place.
7. Mr A attended the appeal hearing to make his case in person. The appeal panel refused his appeal. Mr A believes the panel was at fault, in that it prevented him from speaking freely. He also believes the appeal panel members acted with bias, and the panel clerk was not independent. Specifically, he argues that the fact that the clerk rearranged the date of the hearing placed him at a disadvantage.
8. Independent school admission appeals panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. The law says the size of an infant class must not be more than 30 pupils per teacher. There are only limited circumstances in which more than 30 children can be admitted. There are special rules governing appeals for Reception and Years 1 and 2. Appeals under these rules are known as “infant class size appeals”. The rules say the panel must consider whether:
    

• admitting another child would breach the class size limit;
• the admission arrangements comply with the law:
• the admission arrangements were properly applied to the case:
• the decision to refuse a place was one which a reasonable authority would have made in the circumstances.

9. What is ‘unreasonable’ is a high test. The panel needs to be sure that to refuse a place was “perverse” or “outrageous”. For that reason, panels rarely find an admission authority’s decision to be unreasonable.
10. 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.
11. Mr A’s recourse against what he regards on fault in the admission process was to appeal and ask the panel to consider his case. The clerk’s notes of Mr A’s appeal hearing do not support his contention that he was prevented from speaking or that he was placed at a disadvantage in making his case. Rather, they show that he was able to make his case and that the panel considered it. There is no evidence of fault in the way it did so.
12. The weight panel members give to the evidence before them is a matter for their judgement, not for the Ombudsman. The clerk's notes of Mrs A's appeal hearing show that the panel members considered the evidence he presented and took the view that none of the grounds on which they could uphold the appeal applied. The members considered whether the absence of the SIF was material to the decision and concluded that it was not, because the application was considered under the correct category. That was their decision to make.
13. In the absence of fault in the way the panel made its decision, the Ombudsman cannot intervene to criticise the decision or to substitute an alternative view.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would identify fault on the part of the admission authority or the appeal panel.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman