Summary: Mr C complained about an independent appeal panel’s decision not to admit his son to his preferred secondary school. The Ombudsman finds that the independent appeal panel did not act in accordance with the School Admissions Appeals Code 2012. This was fault. To remedy the injustice caused, the School has agreed to our recommendations to arrange a fresh appeal with a new panel and apologise to Mr C.

The complaint

1. Mr C complains about an independent appeal panel’s decision not to admit his son, D, to his preferred secondary school. He says members of the panel were inexperienced and did not look at his case properly. He says a panel member was replaced at the last minute and did not look at the papers properly.
2. Mr C says the decision has impacted his work schedule because he has to travel further to take his son to the school he now attends.

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 must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a school admission authority’s actions or proposed 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 read the information Mr C submitted with this complaint. I made enquiries of the School and considered the information it sent in response. I also considered the requirements of the School Admissions Appeals Code 2012.
6. I shared my draft decision with Mr C and the School and I invited them to comment on it.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

7. Independent appeal panels must follow the School Admissions Appeals Code 2012 when considering an appeal. The panel must consider whether:

• The admission arrangements comply with the law; and
• The admissions arrangements were properly applied to the case.

8. The panel must then consider whether admitting another child would prejudice the education of others.
9. If the panel finds there would be prejudice, the panel moves to the second stage of an appeal and must then consider each appellant’s individual arguments. If the panel decides the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal.
10. The clerk has a specific duty in ensuring an accurate record is taken of the points raised at the hearing and reasons for decisions.

What happened

11. Madani Boy’s School is a single sex voluntary aided Islamic school. The Governors are the admission authority and are responsible for organising the independent appeal.
12. Mr C applied for a place for his son, D, at the School in October 2019. He was unsuccessful in his application and then his appeal which took place in March 2020. Mr C complains about the appeal.

Back to top

Analysis

13. The School Admissions Appeals Code 2012 issued by the Department of Education sets out the process the independent appeal panel must follow when considering an appeal.
14. As it was an in-year appeal, the panel had to firstly consider whether the admission arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements of the School Admissions Code and Part 3 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. It also had to consider whether the admission arrangements were correctly applied in Mr C’s case.
15. The panel then had to balance D’s need to attend the School with the prejudice admitting him would cause to the efficient education of other children.
16. The School’s written case stated the published admission number had already been exceeded. The published admission number is the number of pupils in each year group that the admission authority has agreed will be admitted. It argued that admitting another child would prejudice the education of existing pupils.
17. Mr C’s case included several reasons why D needed to attend the School. During the appeal, Mr C produced documents to support his view that large class sizes are not detrimental to an effective education.
18. The clerk’s notes do not record any discussion as to whether the admissions arrangements complied with the law or whether they were correctly applied in Mr C’s case.
19. There is no record in the clerk’s notes about the School’s case that it was full and admitting more children would cause prejudice. As part of this, the panel must consider whether any physical changes to the School have had an impact on its ability to absorb more pupils. There is no evidence of consideration of this point.
20. There is also no evidence the panel examined or robustly challenged the School’s case.
21. It is also not clear from the clerk’s notes whether the panel satisfied itself the School was full or whether more pupils could be accepted. The panel must establish this before it can move to the second stage of an appeal. This did not happen in Mr C’s case. The panel considered Mr C’s individual arguments without first establishing whether there would be prejudice in admitting another child to the School.
22. Mr C received a decision letter from the clerk after the appeal ended. It states Mr C’s appeal was unsuccessful because the arguments he put forward did not outweigh the prejudice to the provision of effective education that admitting another pupil into the year group in question would have. However, there is no evidence from the clerk’s notes that the panel considered this point.
23. Each of the separate failings identified above in paragraphs 18 to 22 calls into question the panel’s decision. This caused Mr C a significant injustice as he cannot be certain his appeal was properly considered.
24. In its response to my enquiries, the School has provided me with evidence to show in May 2020 it arranged further training for all panel members and appointed a new clerk. The training was carried out by an independent firm of education solicitors and the focus was on adhering to the School Admissions Appeals Code 2012.

Back to top

Agreed action

25. To remedy the injustice caused by fault, by 2 November 2020 the School has agreed to:

• Write to Mr C and offer him a fresh appeal with a new panel and clerk.
• Apologise to Mr C for the faults identified in this statement.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have found fault by the Council, causing an injustice to Mr C. The School has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman