Summary: A parent complained about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to turn down her appeal about the Council’s refusal of places for her children at her preferred primary school. But the Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate this matter as 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 X provided with her complaint. I also gave Miss X an opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision before I reached a final view in her case. In addition, I took account of documents sent by the Council about Miss X’s appeal.

Back to top

What I found

5. Miss X applied for her twins to start school in September 2020. Miss X named the School as her first preference on her application form.
6. But the Council turned down Miss X’s application for the School. This was because all the places there were taken by children who had a higher priority than her twins under its oversubscription criteria. In particular the successful applicants either had a sibling at the School or lived in its priority area, unlike Miss X’s children.
7. Instead the Council offered the twins places at another local school close to Miss X’s home but which was not one of her preferences.
8. Miss X appealed about the refusal of her application for the School. However the independent appeal panel turned down her appeal. Miss X then complained to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

9. 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. Instead they should hold hearings by telephone or video conference where possible.
10. The Council decided to arrange a hearing by conference call in Miss X’s case. In view of current Government guidance I do not see we could fault the Council for deciding to deal with her appeal in this way.
11. 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.

12. Miss X had applied for Reception places for her twins. Therefore her appeal was heard under the infant class size rules.
13. The School’s admission number for the Reception year is 90, with children taught in three classes of 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 exceeded if Miss X’s twins were also given places. In addition, the panel concluded that the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been correctly applied in the twins’ case.
14. From the records of what the Council presented to the panel about these matters, I consider that panel members had good reason to reach those views.

15. Miss X’s own appeal case mainly related to her circumstances as a working, single parent and the fact that her workplace is next to the School. In particular Miss X said she needed the twins to go to the School because that would mean the school run for all her children would coincide with her working hours. However she said managing the school run would be impossible if the twins had to go to a different school, and she would have to give up her job in that case.
16. Miss X felt she had a compelling case for her twins to be admitted to the School so she was understandably disappointed by the panel’s decision. But from the appeal records I am not convinced there is sign of fault in the way the panel considered matters.
17. 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 X presented in her appeal case, and took these into account in reaching their decision.
18. 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. 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 X’s personal circumstances.
19. The panel could only uphold Miss X’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 respect of Miss X’s appeal. I also see no sign of any other significant fault in the appeal process in her case.

Final decision

20. The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate Miss X’s complaint about the school admission appeal panel’s refusal of her appeal about places for her twins at her preferred primary school. This is because there is no sign of fault in the way the panel dealt with Miss X’s case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman