Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful school admissions appeal. This is because he is unlikely to determine an injustice following minor fault by the school admissions appeals panel.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mrs T, is making a complaint about an unsuccessful school admissions appeal. She says that the published admissions arrangements were not adhered to and that there was a failure to consider her evidence or give adequate reasoning for the decision not to admit her child.

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 or continue with an investigation if we believe the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have reviewed Mrs T’s complaint to the Ombudsman and her appeal to the school admission appeals panel. I have also had regard to the written submissions of Mrs T’s preferred school and the notes of the clerk from the appeal hearing. Further, Mrs T commented on a draft of my decision and her comments were taking into account in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

4. The school admission appeals panel (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.
5. The School Admissions (Infant Class Sizes) (England) Regulations 2012 states that there must not be more than 30 children in an infant class (that is, classes containing reception, year 1 and year 2 children). The Government has listed the circumstances in which a child can be classed as an exception. These include twin siblings, children of armed services parents, looked after children, and children who have special educational needs.
6. In an appeal where the admission of a child would breach the infant class size limit, the School Admission Appeals Code (the Code) states the Panel must consider whether to refuse admission was one which a reasonable admission authority would have made in the circumstances. The threshold for finding that an admission authority’s decision to refuse admission was not one that a reasonable authority would have made is high. The Panel will need to be satisfied that the decision to refuse to admit the child was perverse in the light of the admission arrangements. In other words, the decision must have been so beyond the range of responses open to a reasonable decision maker or which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question could have arrived at it.

What happened

7. Mrs T’s daughter attended the nursery group of her preferred school and she had applied for her to join the reception classes. However, Mrs T’s daughter was refused admission on the grounds that she did not rank high enough on the preferred school’s oversubscription criteria.
8. In May 2020, Mrs T appealed on the grounds that her daughter currently attends the preferred school nursery and that according to its prospectus, children in attendance at the nursery are given greater priority on the oversubscription criteria. Mrs T believes therefore the admissions criteria were not applied correctly which has resulted in her child not being offered a place. In addition, Mrs T also cited her daughter as having special education and social needs due to a speech delay problem. Mrs T believes her daughter’s needs should have been given special consideration during the allocations process.
9. In July 2020, the Panel heard Mrs T’s appeal. It was her case that the admissions arrangements were not correctly applied and that the preferred school is best equipped to meet her daughters medical and social needs. However, it was the school’s case that to admit a further child would breach the infant class size limit. As regards to the admissions arrangements, it was found that the prospectus was incorrect and that the provision Mrs T was relying upon had not been in force since 2014 following a change in the law. The Panel expressed concerns about the prospectus being wrong, but deliberated that the admissions criteria had been correctly applied. The notes of the clerk also confirm the Panel decided that the decision not to admit Mrs T’s child was reasonable.
10. In July 2020, Mrs T was informed that her appeal had been unsuccessful. The reasoning was that the admissions arrangements complied with the law and to admit a further child would breach in the infant class size limit. Further, the Panel confirmed the decision to refuse admission was reasonable in the circumstances.

Assessment

Inaccurate school prospectus

11. Though schools can set their own admission arrangements, in this case the Council is the admissions authority. On review of the written record of the appeal, I note the school prospectus has been acknowledged as incorrect. However, it was also correctly recorded in the notes of the appeal that admission arrangements (including the oversubscription criteria) are set by the admissions authority as laid out on the Council website, not as per the school prospectus. Though therefore the Council has not provided misleading information, I do think it reasonable that the Panel should have given proper consideration and deliberation on whether this matter constituted a breach of the admissions code. This is because admission arrangements should be clear and accurate. For these reasons, I do find a minor element of fault by the Panel for failing to consider this inaccuracy against the Code.

Decision not to admit pupil

12. By law, there must not be more than 30 children in an infant class, unless a child meets a statutory exemption. In this case, both the Council and Panel were required to observe the accurate oversubscription criteria and infant class size legislation. I recognise that Mrs T has evidence concerning her daughter’s speech delay and that the Panel was unable to consider this information, but it did consider the medical and social needs generally and felt the Council’s decision that these could be accommodated at any other school was correct. On this basis, I do not believe the additional information would have changed the outcome. I therefore cannot find fault by the Panel over the general decision not to admit the child since it was bound by the law which it has no say over.
13. The Panel is also required to consider whether to refuse admission was one which a reasonable admission authority would have made in the circumstances of the case. This means the Council must provide examples of what additional measures it would have to implement to comply with infant class size legislation if another child was admitted, but it did not do so, either in its written submission or in the hearing itself. I note from the record of the appeal and the appeal decision letter to Mrs T that the Panel determined the decision not to admit her child was a reasonable one, but it appears to have based this on the school’s general case in which it sets out the challenges that it faces with oversubscription. I do therefore find further evidence of a minor fault by the Panel for failing to consider this mandatory element of the Code.
14. Mrs T also raises that two applicants rejected the preferred school and the Council filled these spaces from the waiting list prior to the appeal. She feels these places should not have been allocated until her appeal was heard since this led to the infant class size limit being reached. However, filling places from the waiting list is the normal procedure and there are no circumstances other than a few exceptions (such as Education and Health Care Plan naming the preferred school) Mrs T’s daughter would have overridden the waiting list.

Injustice

15. Because I have determined minor faults by the Panel, I must now assess whether Mrs T’s child has suffered an injustice, meaning serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of the fault. In these circumstances, I must consider whether Mrs T’s child would have been admitted to her preferred school had the fault not occurred. In my view, the preferred school is bound by infant class size legislation and despite the minor faults and incorrect information by the school which the Panel failed to adequately deliberate over, Mrs T’s child was properly assessed against the correct oversubscription criteria. On this basis, I do not believe Mrs T’s child would have been admitted had the fault by the Panel not occurred. I do however propose to write to the Council giving it notification of the faults with a view to ensuring improved practice in the future.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I will not investigate this complaint because I cannot determine any injustice following minor fault by the school admissions panel.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman