Summary: Ms X complained the admissions appeals panel did not properly consider her child, Y’s appeal for a place at School C. She said that as a result, Y cannot go to school and is not currently receiving an education. The Ombudsman does not find fault in how the admissions appeal panel considered the appeal.

The complaint

1. Ms X’s representative complained the admissions appeals panel did not properly consider her child, Y’s, appeal case. He also said Y had been discriminated against because they use a wheelchair.
2. Ms X said that as a result, Y is receiving no education as they cannot attend the school the admissions authority allocated to them.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a panel’s 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 Ms X’s representative and considered his view of the complaint.
6. We made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided. This included Ms X’s appeal form, the school’s case, the clerk to the panel’s notes and the refusal letter sent to Ms X.
7. I considered the School’s Admission Appeals Code.
8. I wrote to Ms X’s representative and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and guidance

9. All schools must have a set of admission arrangements. These are used to decide which children will receive an offer of a place if there are more applications than places available. The school’s admission authority sets the admission arrangements.
10. Any parent who has their application for a school place refused has the right to appeal the decision via an independent appeal panel. A clerk supports the panel.
11. The Department for Education has published the School Admission Appeals Code (‘the Appeals Code’) to provide statutory guidance on school admission appeals.
12. Parents can send information in support of their appeal and the clerk to the panel circulates it before the hearing, along with information from the school. Parents can attend the hearing to present their case. A representative from the school will normally attend the hearing.
13. Parents and the panel can ask the school’s representative questions. The panel will normally ask the parents questions.
14. The Appeals Code sets out a two-stage process for considering appeals. In the first stage, the panel examines the decision to refuse admission, and considers whether the school took the decision properly. It also has to decide whether admitting extra children would “prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources” for those already at the school.
15. If the panel decides that admitting extra children would prejudice the school, then it must continue to the second stage of the appeal. In this stage, the panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the parent’s case. It must decide whether the parent’s case outweighs the prejudice. This is often referred to as “the balancing stage”.
16. The clerk must ensure an accurate record is taken of the points raised at the hearing, including the proceedings, attendance, voting and reasons for decisions.
17. Following an appeal, the clerk writes to the parents with the panel’s decision. The Appeals Code sets out what information this letter should include to ensure the parent understands how and why the decision was made.

The school’s criteria

18. Where applications exceed available places, the School ranks applicants against the following order of preference:
1. Catholic looked after children and previously looked after catholic children
2. Baptised catholic children with a sibling who attends the school
3. Baptised catholic children who attend certain primary schools
4. Baptised catholic children who live in the areas of the above primary schools
5. Baptised catholic children who currently attend a different the Catholic primary school but do not live in the defined area.
6. Other baptised catholic children.
7. Other looked after and previously looked after children with a sibling who attends the school.
8. Other looked after and previously looked after children.
9. Members of an Eastern Christian Church
10. Other children with a sibling who attends the school
11. Other children who currently attend certain catholic primary schools
12. Other children.

Background to the appeal

19. Ms X’s child, Y, has a life threatening illness. Because of the nature of the illness, medical advice is that there should only be one child with that illness in each school year.
20. Y was due to start secondary school in September 2019. Ms X said she submitted an application form for Y to attend a nearby catholic faith school, School C. School C said it did not receive the form.
21. Ms X submitted a late admissions form naming School C as her preferred choice. School C’s governing body is the admissions authority. The Council oversees admissions to schools in its area and forwards all offers of a place or refusal to School C’s governing body. Because School C was oversubscribed, it applied its oversubscription criteria and ranked Y as 10 – Other children with a sibling who attends the school. Y was not offered a place at School C. Instead they were offered a place at School B.
22. Ms X submitted an appealed to the Council in July 2019 stating she wanted Y to attend School C. Ms X stated Y was not yet baptised because they had been too unwell but the process had begun. She wrote “I completed the paperwork but this went missing so lost out on [School C]”.
23. Ms X submitted some additional information from Y’s specialist nurse and Y’s social worker. Both supported Ms X’s appeal. The nurse stated “we segregate all our children with [Y’s illness] so they do not mix with each other… This policy is carried out by all the schools that our children attend… Therefore we do not recommend a high school to have more than one child with [Y’s illness] in the same academic year as the schools cannot guarantee segregation within the same year”.
24. School B already had a pupil with the same illness as Y in the same year group.
25. Ms X’s school admissions appeal was heard in September 2019. School C submitted a written statement about why it could not accept another pupil and a representative attended the meeting. The school gave the following main reasons for why admitting more children would prejudice the school’s existing children:
• overall, the school was currently oversubscribed by 28 pupils, with Y’s year oversubscribed by 3 pupils;
• the school had a large cohort of pupils who had either been moved because of problems in their previous schools or who had little or no English. These pupils required additional time from teaching and support staff;
• the resource unit for pupils with very complex learning difficulties was oversubscribed;
• the size of the school and classrooms, together with the number of desks, computers and equipment meant additional pupils could not be accommodated;
• there was already considerable congestion at breaktimes and the dining room was not large enough to cope with additional pupils;
• budget constraints meant the school had been required to reduce the number of support staff in classrooms; and
• there were seven other schools within 6 miles from Ms X’s property which had available places.
26. The clerk’s notes record the panel asked the representative of School C a number of questions about its reasons why admitting another pupil would prejudice the school. The clerk’s notes record the following: “school’s case made… admission arrangements correctly and impartially applied”.
27. The panel then considered the second stage, the ‘balancing stage’ to decide if Ms X’s case outweighed the prejudice to the school. The clerk’s notes record the panel asked Ms X about Y’s illness, the reasons around Y and their older sibling not being baptised and why Ms X felt School C was the most suitable for Y.
28. The clerk’s notes record the panel decided unanimously not to uphold Ms X’s appeal. The notes stated “panel appreciate child’s medical needs but believe they can be met at any school – understand the reason that the school offered [School B] could not be taken – other schools available at a reasonable distance”.
29. The clerk sent Ms X a letter stating the panel had not upheld her appeal. The letter gave details of the reasons why.
30. Ms X was unhappy with the outcome and her representative complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

31. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. 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.
32. There was no fault in the way the panel considered the appeal. It went through the two stage process and after hearing Ms X’s case, decided her individual reasons for wanting Y to go to School C did not outweigh the prejudice caused to the school by admitting an additional pupil. The clerk’s notes evidence that when the panel made its decision it was aware of Y’s medical condition and other matters raised by Ms X.
33. Ms X’s representative said Y had experienced discrimination because they are a wheelchair user. There is no evidence of discrimination in the clerks’ notes or any other documentation I have seen. There is no fault.
34. Ms X has turned down a place at the allocated school. Y is now without a school place. This suggests Ms X has to provide F with appropriate full-time education in accordance with the Education Act 1996.

Back to top

Final decision

35. There was no fault. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman