Summary: The Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate this complaint about a school admission appeal panel’s decision. This is because there is no sign of fault by the panel.

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 B provided with her complaint. I also gave Mrs B 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 from the Council about Mrs B’s appeal.

Back to top

What I found

5. When Mrs B applied for a school place for C she made the School her first preference. But when the Council allocated school places it turned down Mrs B’s application for the School and offered C a place at her third preference school instead.
6. There were many applications for the School this year and C was turned down because all the places were taken by children who had a higher priority than her under the School’s oversubscription criteria. In particular places went to children who had a sibling at the School or lived closer to the School than C did.
7. Mrs B appealed about the refusal of a place at the School. But the independent appeal panel turned down her appeal. She then complained to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

8. 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 where possible.
9. The Council decided to arrange a hearing by conference call in Mrs B’s case. I do not see we could fault Council for deciding to deal with the appeal in this way, given the circumstances and current Government guidance.
10. 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.

11. As Mrs B had applied for place for C in the Reception year, her appeal was heard under the infant class size rules.
12. The School’s admission number in the Reception year is 30. At the time of the appeal hearing all 30 places had been filled. As a result the panel decided the infant class size limit would be breached if C was also admitted.
13. From the records of what the Council presented to the panel about this issue I consider the panel had good reason to agree with its case on infant class size prejudice.
14. The panel also decided that the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and correctly applied in C’s case.
15. Mrs B said in her appeal form that the distance criterion was wrongly applied in C’s case. However she did not mention this matter at the hearing or provide any other evidence to support her claim.
16. The Council measures home to school distance in a straight line using a computerised mapping system. From the information provided I do not see any indication of fault in the way the distance was measured in Mrs B’s case.
17. Mrs B’s appeal case related mainly to the fact that the School is the nearest one to her home and very close to where she lives, and C had been attending the nursery there. As a result C had established relationships with the teaching staff, and she wanted to stay with friends from nursery who were progressing to the Reception class. Mrs B also said C showed signs of behavioural problems which she felt would get worse if she had to move to an unfamiliar new school.

18. Mrs B felt she had a strong case for C to be given a place at the School. But from the appeal records I am not convinced there is sign of fault in the way the panel considered her case.
19. In particular the appeal clerk’s minutes from the hearing and the decision-making, and the panel’s decision notice, indicate that panel members noted and understood the main points Mrs B presented in her appeal case, and took these into account in reaching their decision.
20. At the end of the day the panel was entitled to reach its own view about the information it read and heard from both sides at the appeal. The panel also had to apply the strict rules required by law concerning the size of infant classes, which meant it had little scope to consider Mrs B’s appeal case about her family’s circumstances.
21. The panel could only uphold Mrs B’s appeal if it concluded the Council’s original decision to refuse admission was so unreasonable as to be perverse. In considering this matter the panel could only take account of the information available to the Council when it made its original decision. This meant the panel could not give weight to any new information provided at the time of the appeal.
22. 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 respect of Mrs B’s appeal. I also see no indication of any other fault in the appeal process in her case.

Final decision

23. The Ombudsman does not have grounds to start an investigation of Mrs B’s complaint regarding the admission appeal panel’s decision to turn down her appeal about a school place for her daughter. This is because there is no sign of fault in the way the panel dealt with Mrs B’s appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman