Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a school admissions appeal being dismissed. This is because he cannot question the merits of a decision in the absence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Miss Q, is primarily making a complaint about her daughter’s school admissions appeal being dismissed. In this instance, the school admissions authority is the Council.
2. Miss Q also complains that at the time of being told by the Council her daughter was first on the waiting list for admission, the school had 190 children confirmed for year 7. However, she says that the appeal revealed 194 children are currently on the roll, meaning her daughter could not have been first on the waiting list.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended).
4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have reviewed Miss Q’s complaint to the Ombudsman and her appeal to the Council and School Admissions Appeal Panel (the Panel). I have also had regard to the responses of the Council and supporting documents, including the formal notes taken during the Panel hearing. Miss Q also received an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What happened

Background

6. The Panel sits as an independent admission panels for the benefit of children, parents, schools, and academies. Its responsibility is to ensure that parents feel they have had a fair and independent hearing and been given every opportunity to put their case and that the points they have made have been taken seriously and carefully considered.
7. The Published Admission Number (PAN) is the maximum number of pupils that the admission authority will admit to each year group
8. School admission appeals by the Panel are governed by School Admissions Appeal Code (the Code). When considering admitting a child which would breach the PAN, the Panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for the child to be admitted to the school. It must take into account the appellant’s reasons for expressing a preference for the school, including what that school can offer the child that the allocated or other schools cannot. If the Panel considers that the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school it must uphold the appeal and allow admission of the child.

What happened

9. Miss Q made an application requesting admission for her child to attend her preferred school which has an admission limit of 180 students for the 2020-21 academic year. The school was oversubscribed and had been asked to increase its admissions due to a local school closure in order to address a shortage of secondary schools. The school increased its admissions to 190 and had to consider 224 applications for places against the school’s admissions policy.
10. At the time of applying, Miss Q did not live in the catchment area and so her child was placed in Criteria 6, the lowest oversubscription criteria. This meant that when allocating places in accordance with its admissions policy, the Council did not offer Miss Q’s daughter a place.
11. In February 2020, Miss Q moved property within the school’s catchment area and appealed the initial refusal decision on this basis. This is because her daughter would now rank higher on her preferred school’s oversubscription criteria. The school confirmed this, and Miss Q’s daughter was placed in Criteria 3 and now is first on the list for admittance should a place become available.
12. In July 2020, the Panel heard Miss Q’s appeal on whether to admit her daughter to her preferred school. It was the school’s case that its younger year groups were oversubscribed and likely to be in the future given a local school closure. Further, the Council said that movement around the school was tight and that this was resulting in hotspots of poor behaviour. It also confirmed that there was pressure on resources due to an increase in the number of special education needs children requiring special provision. There are also six pupils with an Education, Health and Care Plan (ECHP) which has named the school for admission, taking the number of children on the roll to 196. This is because all children with special educational needs who have EHCP must be admitted to their named school regardless of whether this exceeds the school’s PAN.
13. Miss Q submitted to the Panel that she assumed admittance to her preferred school would not be an issue since they now lived within the catchment area. Moreover, Miss Q informed that her daughter is an anxious and shy child and refusal of the preferred school would result in her needing to take public transport which neither were happy doing. Reference was also made to Miss Q’s daughter being subject to online bullying at the alternative school to the preferred school and felt refusal would be putting her in harms way.
14. The Panel thereafter determined, having considered the school’s case regarding admittance, that to admit further pupils would prejudice the provision of efficient education and the efficient use of resources at the school. The Panel then assessed whether the reasons for admission, put forward by Mrs Q, outweighed the school’s case. It resolved they did not, and the appeal was dismissed.

Assessment

15. By law, I cannot question the merits of a properly made decision. In accordance with the Code, the Panel is required to decide whether admission of additional children beyond the PAN would prejudice the provision of efficient education or efficient use of resources. In my view, the Panel correctly considered the school’s circumstances by determining that there was pressure on resources due to a school closure and an increase in children with special educational needs being admitted (see Paragraph 12). Having decided admission of additional children would be prejudicial, the Panel subsequently balanced the prejudice to the school against Miss Q’s case for admitting her child. The notes of the appeal clerk demonstrate the needs of Miss Q’s daughter were taken into account (see Paragraph 13). However, the Panel decided, on balance, the prejudice to the school would be greater than prejudice to Miss Q’s daughter. This is because the Panel considered Miss Q’s daughter’s educational needs could also be met at an alternative school within a reasonable traveling distance. As the Panel correctly applied the Code, I cannot find fault with the way the decision was reached and for that reason I do not propose to investigate.
16. With regards to Miss Q’s point that her daughter could not have been first on the waiting list if 194 pupils were being admitted to the school, the Council has explained that after the initial allocations had been made, four additional children had to be admitted as they now have an ECHP naming the school. In these circumstances, children that must be admitted to their named school regardless of waiting lists or whether this exceeds the school’s PAN because it has been determined that the named school can best meet their special educational needs.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I will not investigate this complaint because I cannot question the merits of a decision in the absence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman