Summary: Miss X complained about how the School considered her child’s admissions application and appeal and managed its waiting list. The School and admissions appeal panel were not at fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the School wrongly applied its oversubscription criteria during the school admissions process and failed to properly consider her appeal for a place at the School. She also complained Liverpool City Council did not properly administer the School’s waiting list on its behalf.
2. Miss X said this meant the School did not offer her child, Y, a school place and they are unlikely to gain one through 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. If we are satisfied with a school’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
4. We cannot question whether an admission authority or school admissions appeals panel’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. If we find fault, which calls into question an appeal panel’s decision, we may ask for a new appeal hearing. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered:
• all the information Miss X provided and discussed the complaint with her;
• the School’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided; and
• the School’s policies and relevant law and guidance.
6. Miss X and the School had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant Law and Guidance

School Admissions Code

7. The School Admissions Code 2014 (the Code) sets out what schools should do when they have more applications than places. The Code says schools must have oversubscription criteria. The criteria should be “reasonable, clear, objective procedurally fair, and comply with all relevant legislation”.
8. The Code says that once all places are full, admissions authorities must keep a waiting list until 31 December of the school year of admission. It says admission authorities must freshly rank children according to the school’s oversubscription criteria. The School’s governing body is the admissions authority.

Appeals Code

9. 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 limited circumstances where a class can be larger than 30 children.
10. 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 school properly applied its admission arrangements to the case; and
• the decision to refuse a place was one which a reasonable authority would have made in the circumstances.
11. What is ‘unreasonable’ 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.
12. The Ombudsman does not question the merits of decisions properly taken. The panel is entitled to come to its own judgment about the evidence it hears.

School admissions policy

13. The School’s policy details its oversubscription criteria. The criteria places applications into categories 1 to 8. Catholic children resident in the parish of the church associated with the School are classed as category 3. Category 8 is children who do not fit into any other category, including those without a defined faith. The School admits children starting with category 1 until all places are full. Within each category, children are ranked according to the distance between their home and the School.
14. The School’s policy says applicants must include a supplementary faith form with their application if they want their child’s religion to be considered.
15. It says for the School to consider a child Catholic, applicants must provide evidence of baptism. The baptism should take place before the application deadline.

What happened

Criteria

16. Miss X applied to the School in early January 2020. She included a supplementary faith form which confirmed Y would be baptised, but not until after the application deadline in mid-January.
17. Miss X had Y baptised in early February. Miss X sent the School confirmation of Y’s baptism the following day. She included details of circumstances she said delayed Y’s baptism.
18. Two days later, the School met and considered the applications. It decided Y would be classed as category 8 because they had not been baptised by the application deadline.
19. The School offered a place to all children in category 3 and then reached capacity. It wrote to Miss X and told her Y was on its waiting list. It confirmed it now considered Y as a category 3 child. This is because it received confirmation of the baptism by the time it ranked the waiting list.
20. Miss X appealed the School’s decision not to give Y a place. The School held the appeal in early July. The appeal panel found the School’s arrangements complied with the law, the admissions criteria were correctly applied, and it was satisfied with the School’s argument that accepting more children would breach the class size limit.
21. The appeal panel considered Miss X’s argument for accepting Y into the School. This included her personal circumstances and her argument the School should have classed Y as category 3 because the baptism was arranged for shortly after the application deadline. The panel was satisfied the School correctly applied its oversubscription criteria because it received evidence of Y’s baptism after the application deadline. It decided Miss X’s case was not sufficient to breach the infant class size limit.

Waiting list

22. The Council administers the waiting list on behalf of the School. Miss X is concerned the Council administered the waiting list incorrectly. She says it admitted a child from the waiting list when it should have admitted Y. She also says the Council wrongly placed Y at around 30th on the waiting list. When the Council drew up the waiting list, it classed Y as category 3. Y was in second place. There was one child ahead of Y in the list. That child was in the same category but lived closer to the School.

Findings

Criteria

23. The School’s admissions arrangements say a child needs to be baptised for it to consider them Catholic and that applicants must provide suitable evidence of baptism.
24. The Ombudsman cannot question the appeal panel’s decision if it was made without fault. The appeal panel properly considered whether the School should have classed Y as a baptised child at the time of the application deadline. There was no evidence of fault in the way it made its decision.
25. The Clerk’s notes record the Appeal Panel considered the evidence supplied by Miss X but considered the decision of the Admissions Authority was not so unreasonable in the circumstances of the case as to be ‘perverse’. On that basis it refused the appeal. There was no fault in how the Panel considered Ms X’s case so I cannot question its decision to refuse the appeal.

Waiting list

26. The Council ranked the children on the waiting list according to the School’s admissions policy. There was no evidence of fault in how it administered the list, on the School’s behalf.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation. I have not found evidence of fault by the School.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman