Leeds City Council (20 002 856)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Mrs M complains about an Independent Appeal Panel’s decision not to admit her daughter to a primary school. There is no fault in the Panel’s decision. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.
The complaint
- Mrs M complains about an Independent Appeal Panel’s decision not to admit her daughter to a primary school. Mrs M complains the Council made a number of mistakes in the admissions process, and this has undermined her confidence in the outcome.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We cannot question a school admission appeal panel’s decision 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))
- We check the Independent Appeal Panel followed the Code of Practice issued by the Department for Education and the hearing was fair. We do this by examining the notes taken by the Clerk during the hearing. We do not have the power to overturn the Panel’s decision, and we cannot give a child a place at the school. If we find fault, which calls the panel’s decision into question, we may ask for a new appeal hearing.
- If we are satisfied with a panel’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)
How I considered this complaint
- I have considered:
- Mrs M’s comments;
- all the information presented to the Appeal Panel, the notes taken by the Clerk during the appeal, and the Panel’s decision letter following the appeal; and
- the School Admissions Appeals Code.
- I invited Mrs M and the Council to comment on my draft decision.
What I found
- The primary school is a Community School. The Council is the Admission Authority and is responsible for admissions and appeals.
- Mrs M applied for a place for her daughter in Reception. Her application and subsequent appeal were unsuccessful. Mrs M complained to the Ombudsman.
- The Ombudsman checks the appeal was carried out properly. We do not decide whether Mrs M’s daughter should be given a place at the school.
- The School Admission Appeals Code issued by the Department for Education sets out the process the Independent Appeal Panel must follow when considering an appeal.
- No more than 30 children can be taught by a single teacher in an infant class (Reception and Years 1 and 2). If this is not possible without reorganisation or employing extra staff, and this would harm the education of other pupils, “infant class size prejudice” rules apply to the appeal.
- When infant class size prejudice rules apply, the Appeal Panel can only legally uphold an appeal if:
- the child would have been offered a place were it not for some flaw in the admission arrangements; and/or
- the child would have been offered a place if the admissions arrangements had been implemented properly; and/or
- the decision to refuse a place was one which no reasonable authority would have made.
- The threshold for appeals made under c. above is extremely high. The Panel cannot legally uphold appeals which do not fall into the categories above, no matter how persuasive the appeal otherwise is.
- The Panel considered whether the infant class size prejudice rules applied to Mrs M’s appeal. There will be one class of thirty children in Reception at the school. The Council explained in its submission to the Panel that the school does not have resources or space for extra pupils. The Panel decided, therefore, that infant class size prejudice rules apply to Mrs M’s appeal. This is a decision the Panel can take and there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to question it.
- The Panel also considered whether the admission arrangements complied with the law and decided they did.
- The Panel then considered whether the Council had correctly applied the admission criteria to the application. Mrs M’s application was unsuccessful because there were more applications than places at the school, and all the places were given to children with more priority than Mrs M’s daughter. Mrs M’s daughter was in category 4 – children living in the priority admission area without a sibling at the school. The last place was allocated to a child in category 4 who lives 0.36 miles from the school. Mrs M lives 0.37 miles from the school. The Panel decided that Council had correctly applied the admission criteria.
- Finally, the Panel had to consider whether the decision to refuse Mrs M’s daughter a place was one which a reasonable admission authority would have made in the circumstances of the case.
- The Clerk’s notes and the decision letter record Mrs M’s discussions with the Panel at the hearing. I can see from the Clerk’s notes that Mrs M told the Panel the Council had made mistakes when allocating places and administering the waiting lists which had undermined her confidence in the process.
- The Panel considered Mrs M’s concerns, but decided they are not factors the Panel can take into account when considering whether a reasonable admission authority would refuse Mrs M’s application. A reasonable admission authority can only admit children in accordance with the published admission criteria. The Panel was satisfied Mrs M’s application was considered in accordance with the published admission criteria. The Panel could not, therefore, uphold Mrs M’s appeal.
Final decision
- There was no fault in the appeal. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault so I have ended my investigation.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman