Summary: The Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate this complaint from a parent about the school admission appeal panel’s decision in her daughter’s case. This is because there is no sign of fault in the way the panel dealt with the appeal.

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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if, for example, we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a school admission appeal 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mrs X provided with her complaint. I also gave Mrs X an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision before I reached a final view in her case. In addition I took account of documents the Council provided about Mrs X’s appeal.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Council instead offered a place for Y at Mrs X’s second preference infant school.
6. Mrs X appealed about the Council’s refusal of a place at the School. But the independent appeal panel turned down her appeal. Mrs X then complained to the Ombudsman about the panel’s decision.

Back to top

Analysis

7. In normal circumstances appeal panels must allow appellants the opportunity to appear in person and make spoken representations. But the Government has introduced temporary regulations and guidance relating to appeals, in response to the Coronavirus outbreak. In particular the new guidance says admission authorities should not hold face-to-face hearings until it is safe. Instead authorities should hold hearings by telephone or video conference or, where this is not possible, on the basis of written representations.
8. The Council decided it would not be feasible to arrange hearings by video or telephone, so all its appeals would be considered based on written representations only. I do not see sign of fault in the Council’s decision to deal with the appeals in this way, given the circumstances and government guidance.
9. Appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. In particular the law says the size of an infant class must not be more than 30 pupils per teacher, with very limited exceptions. 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.

What is ‘reasonable’ is a high test. To uphold an appeal on this ground the panel would need to be sure that the decision to refuse a place was “perverse” or “outrageous”. For that reason, panels in infant class appeals rarely find an admission authority’s decision to be unreasonable.

10. As Mrs X had applied for a place in the Reception year her appeal was heard under the infant class size rules.
11. The admission number for the School in the Reception year is 90, with children divided into three classes of 30. At the time of the appeal all 90 places had been taken. In the circumstances, the panel decided the infant class limit in one of the classes would be breached if Y was given a place.
12. From the records of what the Council presented to the panel about this matter, I consider the panel had good reason to agree with its case on infant class size prejudice.
13. The panel also decided that the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and correctly applied in Y’s case. From the evidence provided, I do not see any sign of fault by the panel in reaching this view.
14. Mrs X appeal case related mainly to her family’s difficult circumstances due to the lockdown which had forced them to move further away from the School. Mrs X referred to her family and childcare support network being close to the School, and the fact that her and her husband’s workplace was nearby which meant it would be easy to drop off Y at the School. Mrs X said the school run to the offered school would be too disruptive to her work hours and childcare arrangements.

15. But from the appeal documents I do not see sign of fault in the way the panel considered Mrs X’s appeal case.
16. In particular the appeal clerk’s notes from the hearing and the decision-making, and the panel’s decision letter, indicate that panel members read and understood the documents Mrs X put forward about her case. It is also evident the panel took account of the main points that Mrs X raised in her case, in making its decision.
17. At the end of the day the panel was entitled to reach its own view about the evidence it received from both parties at the appeal. It also had to apply the strict rules required by law concerning the size of infant classes. This meant the panel could only uphold Mrs X’s appeal if it concluded the Council’s refusal decision was so unreasonable as to be perverse.
18. But the threshold for finding a decision perverse is very high, and from the information provided I do not see we would have grounds to suggest there was fault in the way the panel reached its view about reasonableness in Mrs X’s case.

Final decision

19. The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the admission appeal panel’s decision to turn down her appeal for a place for her daughter at her preferred infant school. This is because there is no sign of fault in the way the panel dealt with Mrs X’s case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman