Summary: Mrs X complains that a school admissions appeal hearing for her daughter was not properly conducted. There is insufficient evidence to show Mrs X’s arguments were balanced against prejudice to the school if her daughter were admitted. This is fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mrs X and her daughter. The Council has agreed to hold a further appeal hearing to remedy this.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mrs X, says a school admissions appeal panel did not properly consider her evidence, applied the wrong test, was patronising and ill-informed. As a result, she says, her daughter was wrongly denied a place at the school. She also complains that her daughter was treated differently from another child.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated the conduct of the admissions appeal hearing.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke to Mrs X and have considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council. I have shared my draft statement with Miss X and the Council and will consider any comments they choose to make before finalising my decision.
6. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and Guidance on School Admissions

7. The School Admission Appeals Code 2012 (‘the Code’) sets out a two-stage process for considering appeals. In the first stage the Appeal Panel must consider whether the admission arrangements comply with the law and were applied properly to the case. It also has to decide whether admitting another child would “prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources” for those already at the school. If the Panel finds there would be prejudice it goes on to the second stage.
8. In the second stage the panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for the child to be admitted. It must decide whether the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school. If it does it must uphold the appeal. The Code says that in balancing the arguments the Panel “must take into account the appellant’s reasons for expressing a preference for the school, including what that school can offer the child that the allocated or other schools cannot”.
9. The Code says: “the clerk must ensure an accurate record is taken of the points raised at the hearing, including the proceedings, attendance, voting and reasons for decisions”.

What happened

10. Mrs X’s wanted to move her Year 8 daughter, B, to a new school. Mrs X applied to three schools and was awarded her second preference. She appealed, asking for a place at her first choice of school, but her appeal was rejected.
11. Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman about the conduct of the hearing. She said she had been rushed and patronised, that her evidence had not been properly considered and that the panel lacked local knowledge. She also suggested a child who had been accepted into the school had been treated differently from B.
12. The Council gave us a copy of the clerk’s notes. The notes showed little evidence of balancing B’s case against prejudice to the school. A section in the clerking form explaining how the decision was reached stated only that the school was overcrowded, and that B lived out of catchment. These reasons were repeated in the Council’s decision letter to Mrs X.
13. When a parent receives a ‘no’ decision letter, they should be able to understand what the panel thought were their main reasons of appeal and how the panel weighed those reasons in the context of all the other information that was presented to it. Simply saying the school is overcrowded already is not sufficient. Living outside of a catchment area is not an appropriate reason for refusing an appeal. This is fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Mrs X and B.
14. The Council did not accept the panel had rushed or patronised Mrs X or that it lacked local knowledge. It said the other child had not been treated differently. However, it accepted that the lack of balancing evidenced on the clerking form justified a further appeal and offered this as a remedy to Mrs X. It offered to set up a new panel and a new clerk before the end of January 2021. Mrs X agreed to this remedy.
15. I did not investigate Mrs X’s complaints further as I considered nothing more could be achieved for Mrs X.

Agreed action

16. The Council has agreed to set up a new admissions appeal panel to hear Mrs X’s appeal by 21st January.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault by the Council causing injustice, which it has remedied by offering the complainant a new appeal hearing.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman