Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to offer a place at infant school A. This is because there is no suggestion of fault in the way the admission panel considered the appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to offer her daughter a place at infant school A.

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 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 an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the key documents relating to the appeal. This includes the application for a place, the Council’s case explaining why the school is full and the notes of the appeal. I considered comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Infant class size appeals

4. 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 children per teacher, and there are limited circumstances in which this number can be exceeded.
5. 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.

6. What is ‘reasonable’ is a high test. The panel needs to be sure that to refuse a place was “perverse” or “outrageous”. For this reason panels rarely find an admission authority’s decision to be unreasonable.
7. The Council uses set criteria to determine who can be offered a place in a school. For the purposes of this complaint the relevant criteria are children who have the school named on an Education and Health Care Plan (EHCP), children in the care of the Council; children with a sibling at the school; and distance. The school had 30 places for September 2020.

What happened

8. Ms X applied for a place at school A. The school is not named on an EHCP for her child and Ms X does not have another child at the school. The Council offered two places to children in Council care, 13 places to applicants with a sibling at the school and 15 places based on distance. The last child to be offered a place lives 1.257 miles away. Ms X lives 2.076 miles away. The Council offered Ms X a place at school B.
9. Ms X appealed. She explained, in paper and at the appeal, that her child attends a nursery in close to school A and has a sibling at the nursery. She explained her child had taken time to settle but was now happy at the nursery and doing well. She said it would be damaging to move her to a different location, with unfamiliar people and landmarks. Ms X said the decision not to offer a place would cause logistical problems because she would have to take her children to different locations. Ms X said she may be forced to give up her university place. She said that some people who had been offered a place at school A had not expressed a preference for the school.
10. The panel members considered the appeal. They considered evidence from the Council which showed that it had correctly allocated all 30 places to people who already had children at the school or live closer to the school. The panel got confirmation that the Council had only offered places to people who had expressed a preference. They considered evidence which showed that the school is full and there is not enough space to admit more than 30 children.
11. The panel asked questions. For example, members asked whether school B has a nursery and if there were vacancies. It also asked questions about the travel arrangements and if there were family members who could help.
12. The panel decided the Council had correctly administered the admission arrangements and that the decision to refuse a place was not unreasonable or outrageous. The panel members made a unanimous decision not to uphold the appeal.

Assessment

13. I will not investigate this complaint because there is no suggestion of fault. The Ombudsman does not act as another appeal and cannot say whether the panel’s decision was right or wrong. The Ombudsman cannot offer a school place or overturn the panel’s decision and the Ombudsman cannot take into account things have happened since the panel made its decision.
14. The records show the panel considered all the relevant issues including the distances between the different schools and the presence of the sibling at the nursery. It also was aware of Ms X’s belief that not offering a place would be very damaging to her child.
15. Mrs X believes she has strong reasons to be allocated a place but the panel was entitled to come to its own view about the evidence. The records show it understood the key points and took these into account before making a decision. The Ombudsman has no reason to question the merits of the panel’s decision.
16. Ms X says there was a successful appeal which shows the school can accommodate more children. She also says the needs of her family are more pressing than those of the family who had a successful appeal. But, each case is assessed by the panel on its own merits and the panel is entitled to come to its own view about each appeal. The fact that there was a successful appeal does not mean there was fault in the way the panel considered Ms X’s appeal.
17. Ms X says the panel ignored her. But, the notes show the members considered her points but were not persuaded that the Council’s decision to refuse a place, in the light of Ms X’s circumstances, was perverse.
18. Ms X has referred to events since the panel made its decision. For example, she has referred to a recent medical appointment. But this happened after the hearing so the panel could not take it into account. Ms X could update the Council regarding her circumstances but it will not alter the decision that has been made.
19. Ms X says she has been caused an injustice because the impact of not having a place at school A will have dire consequences for the family. However, while Ms X clearly feels concerned, I can only consider the impact (injustice) if there is evidence of fault. And, as I have explained, there is no suggestion of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or the appeal panel.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman