Summary: The Ombudsman does not intend to investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful school admissions appeal. This is because he is unlikely to find fault in the way the appeal was conducted and he cannot question the merits of a decision in the absence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Miss K, is making a complaint about her son’s school admissions appeal being dismissed. She says the decision not to admit her child was taken on the basis of her proximity to the preferred school, yet she is aware of other children in her area who have been admitted.
2. Miss K wants her son to be offered a place at the preferred school and explains the decision not to admit has affected his mental wellbeing.

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 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

4. I have reviewed Miss K’s complaint to the Ombudsman and her appeal to the School Admissions Appeal Panel (the Panel). I have also had regard to the responses of the admissions authority and supporting documents, including the formal notes taken during the Panel hearing. I now invite Miss K to comment on a draft of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. 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.
6. The Published Admission Number (PAN) is the maximum number of pupils that the admission authority will admit to each year group
7. 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

8. Miss K made an application requesting admission for her child to attend her preferred school which has a PAN for each year group of 177 students for the 2020-21 academic year. The school was oversubscribed and had to consider 383 applications for places against its oversubscription criteria. The last pupil to be admitted was assessed against distance from the preferred school and measured a distance of 1.907 miles. Miss K’s child measured 2.072 miles.
9. In March 2020, Miss K appealed the decision on the grounds that her other son attended the preferred school in the past and the decision not to admit will mean separation of friendship groups her son has built. Miss K later added in a statement to the Panel that she found it difficult to accept her son was refused admission on distance since she had ascertained three other accepted students who live further away than her son. Further, Miss K said she is aware of another child in very close proximity to her whose child was admitted following a successful appeal.
10. In June 2020, the Panel heard Miss K’s appeal on whether to admit her son to her preferred school. It was the school’s case that it is oversubscribed to the extent that class sizes are large and human resources stretched to provide the quality and level of support to students deemed appropriate. It also set out that to admit beyond the PAN would mean difficulty keeping to building guidelines which sets the maximum capacity. Further, the school put forward that to admit further pupils would affect to quality of education since this would lead to larger class sizes. It said appointing additional staff would not be financially responsible as the school would ultimately go into deficit. In summary, it was the preferred school’s case that to admit beyond the PAN would prejudice the provision of efficient education and efficient use of resources.
11. 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 Miss K, outweighed the school’s case. It resolved they did not, and the appeal was dismissed.

Assessment

12. 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 (see Paragraph 10) and since this element of the Code was adhered to, I cannot question the merits of the decision made.
13. Having decided admission of additional children would be prejudicial, the Panel subsequently balanced the prejudice to the school against Miss K’s case for admitting her child. The notes of the appeal clerk demonstrate the needs of Miss K’s child were taken into account (see Paragraph 9). However, the Panel decided, on balance, the prejudice to the school would be greater than prejudice to Miss K’s son. Further, I note that Miss K believes her son should rank higher on the oversubscription criteria given her other child attended the preferred school, but this criterion is only relevant where a sibling is currently attending the school and as I understand for Miss K’s other child, this is no longer the case. Again therefore, since the process was adhered to, I cannot as a matter of law question the merits of the Panel’s determination that prejudice to Miss K’s son does not outweigh that to the school should it admit a further child.
14. Finally, I recognise that Miss K has raised that she is aware of other children in close proximity to her who have been admitted to the school. Specifically, she references three children who were admitted in accordance with the oversubscription criteria and one child who was admitted following a successful Panel appeal. Though I am in no position to comment on the specifics of these cases for reasons of privacy and data protection, I confirm the children were admitted either because they ranked higher as per the oversubscription criteria or because the Panel determined in accordance with the process that the child’s circumstances outweighed the school’s case against admittance. I have seen no evidence of fault in how any of these decisions were reached. Further, it should be noted that the admissions authority uses a geographic information system (GIS) for measuring distance from the school and this is likely to conflict with the results ascertained through a search engine, as an example.

Back to top

Draft decision

15. Subject to any comments Miss K might make, my view is that the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because have seen no evidence of fault by the Panel in this case and I cannot question the merits of a decision in the absence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman