Summary: The Ombudsman has found procedural fault in the way the school admissions panel considered Mrs B’s admissions appeal. This caused Mrs B an injustice and so we have recommended the Council hold a new appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mrs B, is making a complaint about her unsuccessful school admissions appeal for her daughter. Mrs B feels the admissions panel did not take relevant information into consideration and failed to apply the admissions criteria properly.
2. In addition, Mrs B is of the view the admissions panel did not properly explain how it reached its decision not to allow her daughter admission to her preferred school. Mrs B says the decision not to admit her daughter means separating her from her brother. As a desired outcome, Mrs B wants her daughter to be offered a place at the preferred school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by 'maladministration' and 'service failure'. I have used the word 'fault' to refer to these. 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).
5. 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).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have reviewed Mrs B’s complaint to the Ombudsman and Council, including her supporting documents. I have also had regard to the decision of the Panel, its formal minutes of the appeal hearing and information provided by the preferred school. Both the Council and Mrs B received an opportunity to comment on a draft of my decision before reaching a final view.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. 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.
8. The Published Admission Number (PAN) is the maximum number of pupils that the admission authority will admit to each year group
9. School admission appeals by the Panel are governed by School Admissions Appeal Code (the Code). When considering admitting a child which would breach the PAN, the Panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for the child to be admitted to the school. It 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. If the Panel considers that the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school it must uphold the appeal and allow admission of the child.

What happened

10. In April 2020, Mrs B applied for her daughter to attend the year one group at the preferred school. However, the application was rejected on the grounds that that the relevant year group had already reached its PAN of 12 pupils.
11. In July 2020, Mrs B appealed against the decision. Mrs B’s case was the decision not to admit her daughter meant separating two siblings. This is because Mrs B’s other child had been accepted for a place in the reception year group at the preferred school. Mrs B also said having two young children at different schools would make daily life difficult for her as a parent.
12. In September 2020, Mrs W’s appeal was heard by the Panel. The Panel’s consideration focused on three specific points from information provided by the school, namely:

(i) to admit a further child would mean exceeding the PAN;

(ii) pupils currently have to share laptops for ICT lessons and;

(iii) one third of the school’s classrooms are smaller than the Department for Education’s (DfE) recommended minimum class size of 56m2 for 30 pupils.

13. Because of these three factors, the Panel resolved that to admit Mrs B’s child would prejudice the provision of efficient education and use of resources at the preferred school. Subsequently, the Panel balanced the prejudice to the school against Mrs B’s case (as set out at paragraph 11) for her child to be admitted. However, the Panel resolved the prejudice to the school would be greater and noted there was a closer school to Mrs B which had capacity for both her children. The appeal was refused, and a decision letter was sent to Mrs B.

My findings

14. Though the school is below its overall PAN, I do accept the year one group has reached its PAN as set out in point (i). The Panel were therefore right to consider and balance any prejudice to the school against Mrs B’s case for her child to be admitted to the school. Importantly, I cannot by law question the merits of the Panel’s decision in the absence of fault. On this basis, my findings relating to the appeal are limited to identifying whether the Panel adhered to the Code.
15. With respect to point (ii), I have reviewed the papers provided by the preferred school which says its ICT provision is covered by 15 laptops in each classroom. At no point does the school’s appeal statement to the Panel give details of pupils sharing laptops or any other ICT equipment. In my view, there are three classrooms and therefore 35 laptops for the 68 pupils at the school. As the preferred school could and likely does teach ICT for its year groups at different periods, I am not convinced this argument against admission has been considered fully by the Panel.
16. As to point (iii), the Panel reference that one third of classrooms are below the DfE’s recommended minimum class size. However, this argument is factually incorrect. According to the school’s own papers, the school has 3 classrooms, all of which are well above the recommended class size. Further, the school has a group room which is exclusively used by 12 pupils in the year 4 group. Considering the DfE recommend a minimum class size of 56m2 for 30 pupils, the group room, on the face of it, is adequate for the purpose it serves.
17. In addition to identifying any applicable prejudice to the school, the Panel must balance this against the prejudice for refusing to admit Mrs B’s child. Though the Panel clearly noted Mrs B’s circumstances, I see no evidence of it explaining why these needs were not strong enough to outweigh the prejudice to the school. For this reason, the Panel did not comply with the Code and so were at fault.
18. Further, I have reviewed the clerk’s decision letter to Mrs B giving the final decision of the Panel. The decision letter said the Panel considered that to admit Mrs B’s child would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources at the school. It also said the Panel felt the prejudice not to admit Mrs B’s child would not outweigh the school’s case.
19. In my view, the decision letter provides no reasoning or justification for the Panel’s decision. It is not sufficient to just cite the Code and tests which apply to the appeal. The clerk must clearly articulate the reasoning behind the decision so to evidence it was reached in compliance with the Code. I am therefore led to believe the Panel did not consider the issues fully under appeal and the considerations required by the Code were not fully and properly administered. On this basis, I consider the Panel and decision letter was subject to fault. This meant Mrs B did not receive a fair appeal hearing and she was therefore caused an injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

20. In light of the faults and injustice identified above, the Council has agreed to take the following actions within two months from the date of a final decision:

• Prepare a fresh appeal hearing. The Panel must be constituted with different members who have no prior knowledge or involvement in Mrs B’s appeal.
• Ensure the appeal is heard by the Panel while giving Mrs B the opportunity to provide written arguments and evidence in support of the appeal 2 weeks before the hearing date. The Council will contact Mrs B to obtain this information.
• Make all necessary arrangements with the Panel so that Mrs B can give verbal representations at the hearing.
• Provide a fresh decision following the appeal hearing to Mrs B which gives full reasonings for the decision reached.

Back to top

Final decision

21. The Panel were at fault for not considering mandatory elements of the Code or providing Mrs B reasoning for its decision. This caused an injustice and so the Council has agreed to hold a fresh appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman