Summary: A parent complained about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to turn down appeal for a place for her son at her preferred primary school. But the Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate the complaint because there is no sign of fault by the panel.

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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if, for example, we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mrs X provided with her complaint. I also gave Mrs X an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision before I reached a final view in her case. In addition, I took account of documents from the Council about Mrs X’s appeal.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs X’s children were attending another primary school in the area. However Mrs X wanted them to transfer to the School, which is the nearest one to the family home.

6. Y’s sister was the first to get a place at the School. In July 2019 Mrs X also approached the School for places for Y and his brothers. The School subsequently offered places to Y’s brothers.

7. The School accepts 15 pupils in the Reception year. In successive years the Year groups are combined to make classes of 30. Therefore Year 1 and 2 children are taught in a combined group of 30.

8. In July the School said there were no vacancies in Year 1, which was Y’s Year group at the time, but there was a spare place in the Reception Year. The School said that if the Reception place was not filled by the end of term in two weeks’ time there would only be 29 pupils in the new Year 1 and 2 class in September. In that event Y could be admitted at that stage.

9. However the vacancy in Reception was filled before the end of July, so Y was refused a place for September.

10. Mrs X appealed about the School’s refusal decision. The School asked the Council to arrange the appeal on its behalf. But the independent appeal panel set up by the Council turned down Mrs X’s appeal.

Back to top

Analysis

11. Appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. In particular the law says the size of an infant class must not be more than 30 pupils per teacher, with very limited exceptions. In 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, and were properly applied to the case;
• the decision to refuse a place was one which a reasonable authority would have made in the circumstances.

What is ‘reasonable’ is a high test. To uphold an appeal on this ground the panel would need to be sure that the decision to refuse a place was “perverse” or “outrageous”. For that reason, panels in infant class appeals rarely find an admission authority’s decision to be unreasonable.

12. Mrs X originally asked for a place for Y in last year’s Year 1 group. All the Year groups moved up in September, so by the time of her appeal Mrs X wanted a place for Y in Year 2. As Years 1 and 2 are infant years, the infant class size rules applied in her case.
13. At the time of Mrs X’s appeal all 15 Year 2 places were taken and there were 30 children in the combined Year 1 and 2 class. In the circumstances, the panel decided the infant class limit would be exceeded if Y was admitted.
14. The panel also accepted that the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and correctly applied in Y’s case. In particular the panel concluded the School had not made a formal offer of a place in July.
15. From the records of what was presented at the hearing about these matters, I consider the panel had good reason to agree with the School’s case on infant class size prejudice, and that the admissions arrangements had been properly applied in Y’s case.

16. Mrs X attended the appeal hearing to present her case. This related mainly to what happened in July when the School indicated a place for Y would be available. Mrs X also referred to her wish for Y to have a Christian education, the adverse impact on Y from being separated from his siblings, and the difficulty she faced in transporting her children to two different schools so far apart.
17. Mrs X was unhappy about panel members’ attitude and felt they did not listen to her case.
18. However, I consider the appeal clerk’s notes from the hearing and the panel’s decision-making indicate that panel members noted and understood the points Mrs X put forward in her case. I also see that panel members explored relevant issues with Mrs X in their questions on the day. In addition I consider the clerk’s notes and the panel’s decision letter indicate the panel took the points Mrs X raised into consideration in reaching its decision.
19. So I am not convinced we could say the panel did not take suitable account of Mrs X’s appeal case. I also consider the panel’s decision letter provided a sufficient explanation of the reasons for its decision.
20. In addition I do not see sign of any other fault in the way the appeal was run. For instance, it seems Mrs X was given a reasonable opportunity to make her case, and I note the panel checked with her at the end of the hearing that she had said all she wanted to say. I also saw no indication that panel members were off-putting in their exchanges with Mrs X.
21. At the end of the day the panel was entitled to reach its own view about the evidence it read and heard from both sides at the appeal. It also had to apply the strict rules required by law concerning the size of infant classes. In Mrs X’s case this meant the panel could only uphold her appeal if it concluded the School’s refusal decision was so unreasonable as to be perverse.
22. But the threshold for finding a decision perverse is very high, and from the information provided I do not see we would have grounds to say there was fault in the way the panel reached its view about reasonableness in Mrs X’s case.
23. In the circumstances, I have concluded we do not have grounds to pursue Mrs X’s complaint as it is very unlikely an investigation would find fault which would justify us questioning the panel’s decision in her case.

Final decision

24. The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the appeal panel’s refusal of her appeal regarding a place for her son at her preferred primary school. This is because there is no sign of fault in the way the panel dealt with matters in her case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman