Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and so we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her son.

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 considered Mrs X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information she provided. I also gave Mrs X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs X applied for a place for her son (Y) in Reception for September 2019. Mrs X and her family then moved address in April 2019. Mrs X applied for a place in the closest school to her new home (School Z). Because there were no places available in School Z, the Council refused Mrs X’s application. It has offered Y a place in the school closest to her new home address. Mrs X appealed the decision not to offer Y a place at School Z. Mrs X did not attend the appeal and so it was heard in her absence.
5. Independent school admission appeal 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, where admitting another child would mean there would be more than 30 pupils per teacher. 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.
6. What is ‘unreasonable’ is a high test. The panel needs to be sure the decision to refuse a place was “perverse” or “outrageous”. For that reason, panels rarely find an admission authority’s decision to be unreasonable. Mrs X’s appeal for a place was governed by infant class size legislation.
7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and we cannot question decisions taken without fault. Appeal panels must consider the information they are presented with – but it is for the panel to decide what weight it will give to the evidence it hears.
8. The clerk’s notes from the hearing show the Council’s representative explained the admissions process and why it had not offered Y a place.
9. The clerk’s notes show the panel considered the points set out in paragraph 5. It decided School Z’s admission arrangements had been properly determined and applied. It decided it was not an unreasonable decision to refuse admission. The panel decided that none of the grounds for allowing an infant class size appeal had been met. This is a decision the panel was entitled to reach.
10. I understand Mrs X is unhappy her appeal was unsuccessful. But each panel needs to reach a decision based on the information before it. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the panel decided Mrs X’s appeal for the Ombudsman to become involved. An investigation is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and so we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman