Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about an Independent Appeals Panel’s decision not to admit a child to the complainant’s preferred primary school. This is because there is no fault causing injustice in the way the Independent Appeal Panel (IAP) made its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, complains the Independent Appeals Panel (IAP) did not consider her reasons for appeal when deciding whether to grant her daughter a place at her preferred primary school.

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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• 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 considered Mrs X’s complaint and her correspondence with the Panel. I also considered the documents submitted to the Panel, and its notes from the appeal. I invited Mrs X to comment on a draft of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs X applied a primary school for her child. Mrs X lives outside of the catchment area, but felt that due to her child’s medical needs, the preferred school would be better placed to support them.
5. Mrs X’s child was not granted a place at the preferred school and was offered a place at an alternative school.
6. Mrs X appealed against the decision. In support of her appeal, she set out her child’s medical needs and the reasoning for why the preferred school is better placed to support her child.
7. The IAP refused Mrs X’s appeal. Mrs X believes the Panel did not consider the additional information she submitted, and the circumstances of her child’s health. Mrs X wants the panel to reconsider the appeal in light of her supporting evidence.

Infant class sizes

8. The School Admission Appeals Code 2012 issued by the Department for Education sets out the process the Independent Appeal Panel must follow when considering an appeal.
9. 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 significant additional measures which would harm the education of other pupils, “infant class size prejudice” rules apply to the appeal.
10. When infant class size prejudice rules apply, the Appeal Panel can only legally uphold an appeal if:
1. the child would have been offered a place were it not for some flaw in the admission arrangements; and/or
2. the child would have been offered a place if the admissions arrangements had been implemented properly; and/or
3. the decision to refuse a place was one which no reasonable authority would have made.

Assessment

11. The Panel considered whether the infant class size prejudice rules applied to Mrs X’s appeal. There are three classes in reception at the school, each with the space for 30 children. The School received more applications than it had space available and explained in its submission to the Panel why the school is unable to accommodate additional pupils, although it did not make an explicit infant class sizes case. The Panel decided, therefore, that infant class size prejudice rules apply to Mrs X’s appeal.
12. The Panel also considered whether the admission arrangements complied with the law and decided they did.
13. The Panel then considered whether the Council had correctly applied the admission criteria to the application. Mrs X’s application was unsuccessful because reception was full. The Panel decided that Council had correctly applied the admission criteria.
14. Finally, the Panel had to consider whether the decision to refuse Mrs X’s child a place was one which a reasonable admission authority would have made in the circumstances of the case.
15. Mrs X submitted a detailed written case before the hearing. This included information about her child’s medical condition and why she felt her child would be better supported at the preferred school and should have been offered a place at the school.
16. The school’s oversubscription criteria do not include medical considerations, unless as part of an EHCP. The Panel therefore decided that the Council could not take the medical problems of Mrs X’s child into account when making allocations and that its decision was reasonable.
17. Mrs X believes that the Panel did not consider the additional information regarding her child’s medical condition that she provided, because it did not mention it in the appeal refusal letter. The Clerk’s notes of the hearing show that it did consider the information. However, it could not take it into account when making its decision. Where ICS regulations apply, the IAP has no discretion to offer a place except in the circumstances described above, no matter how sympathetic to the case it may be. Consequently the medical information did not form part of the reasons provided in the letter explaining the refusal of the appeal.
18. Additionally, Mrs X submitted further information about her daughter after the decision was sent to her. This information was not provided at the time of appeal therefore the Panel would not have considered it.
19. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of decisions properly taken. In this case, I cannot see fault in how the panel reached its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely I would find evidence of fault by the Panel which caused significant injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman