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

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about an unsuccessful application and admission appeal for a school place for his daughter. He complains about a lack of transparency in the school admissions process and maladministration by the appeal panel.

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 Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X made an in-year application for a Year 1 school place for his daughter (Y). Because there were no places available in either of Mr X’s preferred schools, the Council offered Y a place in the next nearest school with spaces. Mr X appealed the decision not to offer Y a place in his preferred school. Mr X did not attend the appeal and so it was heard in his 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. Mr 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 school’s representative explained the admissions process and why it had not offered Y a place.
9. Mr X says the panel did not consider if places had been offered to other students between his application being submitted and his appeal being heard. But the clerk’s notes show the panel considered the points set out in paragraph 5. It decided the school’s admission arrangements had been properly determined and applied. It was for the panel to decide what questions to ask the admission authority about how places had been allocated. If Mr X had attended the appeal, he could have raised any concerns he had about the way his application had been processed. But the panel applied the scrutiny it considered appropriate. It decided it was not an unreasonable decision to refuse admission. The panel found 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. I have not seen any evidence to suggest there was fault in the way Mr X’s application was handled and which the panel should have identified.
10. I understand Mr X is unhappy his 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 Mr 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 Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman