Summary: A parent complained about the way the school admission appeal panel considered her appeal for a school place for her son. But the Ombudsman does not have sufficient reason to investigate the complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault by the panel which affected the outcome and, anyway, the Council has since agreed to review the parent's case.

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 an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (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, and her comments on the telephone. 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 about Miss B’s application and appeal which I obtained from the Council.

Back to top

What I found

5. Miss B wanted C to start school in September 2020. When Miss B applied for a school place she listed the School as her first preference. However she was unsuccessful with her application as all the places at the School were taken by children with a higher priority for admission than C. In particular the successful children either had a sibling at the School or lived nearer to it than C.
6. The Council instead offered C a place at Miss B’s second preference school. But Miss B said she would not be able to take C there due to her disability.
7. Miss B appealed about the refusal of a place at the School, but the independent appeal panel turned down her appeal.

Back to top

Analysis

8. 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.

9. Miss B’s appeal was heard under the infant class size rules because she had applied for a place for C in the Reception year.
10. The School’s intake in Reception is 30. At the appeal hearing the Council confirmed that all the Reception places had been filled. As a result the panel decided the infant class size limit would be breached if C was also admitted.
11. I consider the panel had good reason to reach that conclusion based on the information the Council presented to it.
12. The panel also concluded that the Council’s admission arrangements for the School were lawful and had been correctly applied in C’s case.

13. When Miss B originally applied for a school place she asked the Council to prioritise her application for the School on medical grounds because of her disability, which seriously affects her mobility. Miss B applied for the School in particular because it is on a direct bus route from her home and the journey there would involve much less walking than the journeys to other local schools.
14. But the Council’s Medical Panel decided Miss B’s application did not qualify for medical priority. After school places had been allocated in April Miss B provided the Council with more medical evidence in the hope that C’s application on the waiting list for the School could be prioritised on medical grounds. But the Panel again decided she did not meet the medical criterion.
15. When Miss B appealed she re-submitted her medical evidence and included a new letter from her hospital consultant which supported her need for a place for C at the School. But the appeal panel said it was not its role to reconsider the medical evidence, and it accepted the Medical Panel’s previous ruling.
16. On this basis it appears to me that the appeal panel may have mistakenly assumed that the Medical Panel had already seen the consultant’s recent letter, and therefore it may not have given the letter due consideration in making its decision in Miss B’s case.
17. But if the panel was at fault in this respect, I do not see we could say this necessarily made any difference to its decision.
18. In particular, under the rules for infant class appeals the panel could only look at whether the Council’s original decision on Miss B’s application was reasonable, and in line with the admission arrangements, based on the information available at that time. Therefore the panel had little scope to take account of any new evidence or Miss B’s current personal circumstances.
19. In addition, I do not see sign of any other fault in the appeal process in Miss B’s case.
20. Miss B asked for her appeal to be decided on the basis of written representations rather than attending a hearing. But it is evident the panel gave her a reasonable opportunity to submit information and to ask and answer questions regarding the respective appeal cases, before her case was heard.
21. In addition the appeal clerk’s record of proceedings at the hearing and the panel’s decision letter indicate that the process the panel followed in considering and deciding Miss B’s appeal was in line with the requirements of the statutory School Admission Appeals Code.
22. Miss B felt she had a strong case for C to be given a place at the School. But at the end of the day the panel was entitled to reach its own view about the information it received from both sides at the appeal. In addition, the panel had to apply the strict rules required by law concerning the size of infant classes.
23. In effect, 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.
24. Miss B also felt the Council should look again at her difficulties regarding travel to school in the light of the evidence she provided in her appeal case. But recently the Council confirmed it had agreed to hold another Medical Panel meeting to consider Miss B’s additional information. Therefore it appears the Council is now providing one of the main outcomes Miss B was seeking from her complaint.
25. In the circumstances I have concluded that we do not have grounds to start an investigation in Miss B’s case.

Final decision

26. The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate Miss B’s complaint about the way the admission appeal panel considered her appeal about a place for her son at her preferred primary school. This is because there is no sign that any fault by the panel caused Miss B an injustice to warrant our further involvement in her case. In addition the Council has agreed to review her medical evidence.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman