Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Schools Admissions Appeal Panel failed to provide her child with a place at this school. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused them to lose out on a school place.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, says the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel did not properly consider her appeal for a place for her child, Y.

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 a 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)
3. 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, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. This complaint involves events that occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the Council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Principles of Good Administrative Practice during Covid”.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mrs X provided with her complaint. The Council provided me with the notes from the Appeal Panel hearing, the documents the Appeal Panel had and its decision letter. Mrs X had an opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background information

6. Mrs X applied on time for her child, Y, to have a place at School Z from September 2020.
7. There were more applicants than places. The Council applied the published admissions scheme to decide who should get the places. The last place went to a child in the same admissions criteria to Mrs X. The Council applied its tie breaker which is the distance from the School. Using its GIS system, Mrs X lives further away from School Z than the last admitted child. The Council offered Y a place at School D, Mrs X’s second preference school, which is less than a mile from her home.
8. Mrs X appealed for a place at School Z. She said:
• School Z is closer than School D
• She had recently suffered an accident which affected her wrist and made it difficult to walk holding two children’s hands
• A younger sibling is due to attend the nursery attached to School X from January 2021.
• Y had health issues which meant they were tired if they walked more than ten minutes.
9. An independent appeal panel considered her appeal in July 2020 via video link. It decided not to award a place. Mrs X disagreed and complained to the Council. She said the Council had calculated her home to school distance wrong. She provided evidence from internet route planning sites she says supporting her view.
10. The Council replied and said that it used a system which is more accurate than anything a free internet service provided. And it uses the same system for all applicants. It could not use a different system just for her as that would not be fair to all.
11. Mrs X remained unhappy. She says the Council should recalculate her route.

Analysis

The appeal panel’s and our role

12. Independent 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. These are called excepted pupils.
13. There are special rules governing appeals for Reception and Years 1 and 2. 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.
14. What is ‘reasonable’ is a high test. The panel needs to be sure that to refuse a place was “perverse” or “outrageous”. For that reason, panels rarely find an admission authority’s decision to be unreasonable in light of the admission arrangements.
15. We cannot question the decision if it has been properly taken. If the Panel has been properly informed, and used the correct procedure, then it is entitled to come to its own judgment about the evidence it hears.
16. The appeal panel’s detailed decision letter records the reasons Mrs X gave the appeal panel for wanting a place. She had the chance to question the Council case at the appeal including the distance used. She did not do so. There is no right to a second appeal because the parent wants to argue other factors they choose not to at the first appeal.
17. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Appeal Panel’s decision based on the information I have seen which supports the appeal panel’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

18. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault which caused her to lose out on a place.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman