Summary: The Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate this complaint about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to turn down an appeal about the refusal of place at a school. 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 Miss B provided with her complaint. I also gave Miss 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 the Council provided about Miss B’s appeal.

Back to top

What I found

5. C was due to start school in the Reception year this September.
6. When Miss B put in her application for a school place last October she listed the School as her first preference. However the Council turned down Miss B’s application as all the places at the School were allocated to children who had a higher priority than C under its admission priorities.
7. In particular the successful applicants either had a sibling at the School or lived closer to it than C did.
8. The Council instead offered C a place at another local school near to Miss B’s home. But this school was not one of Miss B’s preferences.
9. Miss B appealed about the refusal of a place for C at the School, but the independent appeal panel turned this down. Miss B then complained to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

10. In normal circumstances appeal panels must allow appellants the opportunity to appear in person and make spoken representations. But this year the Government introduced temporary regulations and guidance relating to appeals, in response to the Coronavirus outbreak. In particular the new guidance said admission authorities should not hold face-to-face hearings until it is safe, and instead should hold hearings by telephone or video conference where possible.
11. The Council decided to arrange a hearing by conference call in Miss B’s case. But I do not see we could fault it for deciding to deal with her appeal in this way in view of current Government guidance
12. 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.

13. Miss B’s appeal was heard under the infant class size rules because she had applied for a place in the Reception year.
14. The School’s admission number for Reception is 30. The Council confirmed at the appeal hearing that all 30 places in Reception had been taken. As a result the panel decided the infant class size limit would be breached if C was also given a place. In addition the panel decided the Council’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been correctly applied C’s case.
15. From the records of what the Council presented to the panel about these matters, I consider the panel had good reason to make those decisions.

16. Miss B took part in the hearing by conference call. Her appeal case related to C’s familiarity with the School. Miss B also wanted C to experience the same high quality of teaching C’s sibling had recently benefited from at the School. In addition Miss B referred to her work commitments which meant she relied on her parents to help with the school run. However she said her parents live close to the School and C’s sibling’s school, and the school run would not be manageable for them if C went to the school she had been offered instead.
17. Miss B said the panel rudely interrupted her during the hearing. She also said the panel was rude and defensive when she raised an issue about a child living in another area being offered a place at the School.
18. However the appeal clerk has denied that panel members were rude or defensive. The clerk also said Miss B was properly advised that any concerns about a fraudulent admission were not something the panel could consider and should be taken up with the Council.
19. In addition, the clerk’s notes from the hearing do not record any untoward comments or interruptions by the panel, and it appears Miss B was given a reasonable opportunity to make her case.
20. In the circumstances, as there are conflicting accounts of the exchanges between Miss B and the panel and no other objective records of what took place at the hearing, I do not see we are likely to find sufficient evidence to justify finding fault with the panel regarding this matter.
21. Miss B felt she had a strong case for C to be given a place at the School, so she was understandably disappointed by the panel’s decision. But from the information provided I am not convinced there is sign of fault in the way the panel decided matters in her case.
22. In particular, I consider the appeal clerk’s record of proceedings at the hearing and the panel’s decision letter indicate that panel members noted and understood the main points Miss B presented in her appeal case, and took these into account in reaching their decision.
23. But 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.
24. In addition, the panel had to apply the strict rules required by law concerning the size of infant classes and, in effect, this meant it had little scope to give weight to Miss B’s personal circumstances.
25. Ultimately the panel could only uphold Miss B’s appeal if it concluded the Council’s decision to refuse admission was so unreasonable as to be perverse. 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 Miss B’s case.

Final decision

26. The Ombudsman does not have grounds to start an investigation of Miss B’s complaint about the admission appeal panel’s rejection of her appeal for a place for her daughter at her preferred primary school. This is because there is no sign of fault in the way the panel dealt with and decided Miss B’s appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman