Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful school admissions appeal. This is because he is unlikely to determine fault and he cannot question the merits of a decision in the absence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr D, is making a complaint about an unsuccessful school admissions appeal for his daughter.
2. Specifically, Mr D explains that the school he initially applied for is no longer suitable due to his family circumstances and he says the admissions authority and school admissions appeal panel did not take this into account.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended).
4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have reviewed Mr D’s complaint to the Ombudsman and his appeal to the school admission appeals panel. I have also had regard to the written submissions of the Council which in this case is the admissions authority and the notes of the clerk from the appeal hearing.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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

9. Mr D applied for his daughter to attend his preferred school (School X). His daughter was subsequently accepted for admittance, but following the COVID-19 pandemic, Mr D felt the change in circumstances meant School X was no longer suitable. Therefore, in April 2020, Mr D submitted a further application for a different preferred school (School Y). However, Mr D’s application was unsuccessful, and he was again offered School X by the admissions authority.
10. In May 2020, Mr D appealed the admissions authority’s decision not to admit his child. It was his case that following the COVID-19 pandemic, school X was no longer a safe and viable choice. Mr D said this was because of his wife’s medical problems. His position was that his wife has had to attend hospital more frequently and as School Y was closer to his address than School X, this would reduce the chance of potential contamination to his wife and would be easier on the family. Further, Mr D explained that he lost his employment due to the pandemic and could no longer afford the extra travel.
11. In July 2020, Mr D’s appeal was heard by the Panel. The admissions authority presented its case that to admit a further child would breach the infant class size limit. It explained that to admit beyond the infant class size limit would result in educational and health and safety difficulties at School Y. Further, the admissions authority explained that to admit a further child would require the school by law to employ an additional teacher and provide additional accommodation which is not compatible with its available funding and resources. Having weighed both the school and Mr D’s case, the Panel determined to admit a further child to School Y would breach the infant class size limit. Further, and while sympathetic to Mr D’s family circumstances, it resolved that the decision not to admit was a reasonable decision. The Panel said this was because extra resources would be required to admit a further child and it felt Mr D was able to take his daughter to and from School X and the case of the COVID-19 pandemic would be the same regardless of which school Mr D’s daughter attended. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Assessment

12. By law, there must not be more than 30 children in an infant class, unless a child meets a legal exemption. In this case, both the admissions authority and Panel were required to observe the admissions arrangements and infant class size legislation. I recognise that Mr D’s family circumstances have changed, but the law does not offer discretion in these circumstances and I cannot find fault by the Panel over its application of the infant class size rule since it is bound by the law.
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 th Council must provide examples of what additional measures it would have to implement to comply with infant class size legislation if another child were admitted. On review of the admission authority’s case to the Panel and the notes of the Panel Clerk, such factors were clearly considered (see Paragraph 9). Moreover, the circumstances of Mr D’s family situation were considered also in reaching a decision, but it felt the reasons given were not such that the decision to refuse admission was unreasonable. I am therefore unable to determine fault by the Panel in its application of the Code and I cannot question the merits of a decision in the absence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not investigate this complaint because I cannot determine fault nor question the merits of a decision in the absence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman