Summary: The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate this complaint about the refusal of a school place and the admission appeal panel’s decision to turn down an appeal about the refusal. This is because there is no sign of fault by the School or 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 Ms X provided with her complaint. I also gave Ms X 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 information the School and the Council provided about Ms X’s appeal and the later admission of another child.

Back to top

What I found

5. When Ms X applied for a school place in Reception for Y starting in September 2020 she put down the School as her first preference on her application form.
6. But the School rejected Ms X’s application. This was because all the places were taken by children who had a higher priority than Y under its Admissions Policy. In particular the successful applicants were either baptised Catholics, had a sibling at the School or lived closer to the School than Y. Instead the Council offered Y a place at another local school, which was Ms X’s second preference.
7. Ms X appealed about the refusal of a place for Y at the School. The School asked the County Council to arrange the appeal on its behalf. But the independent appeal panel turned down Ms X’s 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. Ms X had applied for a place in the Reception year. Therefore her appeal was heard under the infant class size rules.
10. The School’s admission number is 30. At the appeal the School confirmed that all 30 places had been taken. The panel then decided that giving a place to Y would mean the legal limit on the size of infant classes would be exceeded. The panel also reached the view that the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been correctly applied in Y’s case.
11. From the records of what was presented to the panel about these matters, I consider that it had good reason to reach those conclusions.
12. In respect of the School’s Admissions Policy, it was evident that Y’s application was correctly assessed under the eighth priority criterion, and she did not qualify for a higher priority mainly because she had not been baptised at the time the original admission decisions were made. In addition it was clear Y lived much further from the School than the last child admitted under the eighth criterion.

13. Ms X’s appeal was decided on the basis of written representations. Ms X’s appeal case related mainly to her family’s background as practising Catholics and their close connections with the School. Ms X also provided confirmation of Y’s recent baptism and explained why this had been delayed. In addition Ms X referred to the difficulties the family would have with the school run if Y had to go to the offered school, and that this would not be a problem if she went to the School.
14. Ms X felt she had a strong case for Y to be admitted to 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 considered and decided her case.
15. In particular, I consider that the appeal clerk’s record of proceedings at the hearing and the panel’s decision-making, and the panel’s decision letter, indicate that panel members noted and understood the points Ms X put forward in her appeal case, and took these into account in reaching their conclusions.
16. 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 and, in doing so, it had to apply the strict rules required by law concerning the size of infant classes.
17. As a result the panel had little scope to give weight to Ms X’s case regarding her current family circumstances. In particular the panel could only look at whether the School’s original decision on Ms X’s application was reasonable, and in line with its Admissions Policy, based on the information available at that time. That meant, for instance, the panel could not take account of the fact that Y had subsequently been baptised.
18. Ultimately the panel could only uphold Ms X’s appeal if it concluded the School’s decision to refuse a place 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 Ms X’s case.
19. Sometime after Ms X had her appeal the School offered a Reception place to another child, taking the number in the class to 31. Ms X complained this showed the appeal panel’s decision in her case was wrong and Y had been discriminated against as a result.
20. In order to address this part of Ms X’s complaint I made enquiries to the School and the Council about the reason the additional child was admitted. I am unable to reveal any details of the other child’s case for confidentiality reasons. However I am satisfied from the information provided to me that the School had good reason to admit the child in question. In particular I understand that the child met one of the limited exceptional circumstances criteria which, in law, allows an admission authority to go above 30 in an infant class.
21. In the circumstances I do not see that the admission of the other child in any way invalidated the appeal panel’s decision in Y’s case or indicated Y has been wrongly denied a place at the School.

Final decision

22. The Ombudsman does not have grounds to start an investigation of Ms X’s complaint about the School’s refusal of a place for her daughter and the admission appeal panel’s decision to turn down her appeal regarding this matter. This is because there is no sign of fault by the School or the appeal panel.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman