Lancashire County Council (20 007 359)

Category : Education > School admissions

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 29 Mar 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Ms X complained the school admissions appeal panel failed to properly consider her appeal for her child to attend year 1 at the school. There was no fault in the way the panel considered the appeal.

The complaint

  1. Ms X complained that the school admissions appeal panel failed to properly consider her appeal for a place for her child, Y, in year 1 at School B. In particular, Ms X complained the panel had not taken sufficient account of the reasons she needed her child to go to the school. As a result Y did not get a place at School B

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an independent school admissions appeals 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. If we find fault, which calls into question the panel’s decision, we may ask for a new appeal hearing. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
  2. 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

  1. I have considered the information provided by Ms X and I discussed the complaint with her on the telephone. I have considered information provided by the Council about the appeal and the School Admission Appeals Code 2012.
  2. I gave Ms X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments I received in reaching the final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and guidance

  1. Independent school admission appeals panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. The law says the size of an infant class must not be more than 30 pupils per teacher. There are only limited circumstances in which more than 30 children can be admitted. There are special rules governing appeals for Reception and years 1 and 2. Appeals under these rules are known as “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.
    • the admission arrangements were properly applied to the case.
    • the decision to refuse a place was one which a reasonable authority would have made in the circumstances.
  2. What is ‘unreasonable’ is a high test. The panel needs to be sure that to refuse a place was “perverse” or “outrageous”. For that reason panels rarely find an admission authority’s decision to be unreasonable.
  3. The Ombudsman does not question the merits of decisions properly taken. The panel is entitled to come to its own judgment about the evidence it hears.

The appeal

  1. Ms X and her three children moved into the Council’s area in February 2020. Ms X has walking difficulties. She also has a disabled child who is picked up and dropped off for school, by school transport. She applied for a place to local schools for Y but none had places available. The Council offered Y a place in school C, which is around one and a half miles walking distance from Ms X’s home. In May 2020 Ms X, with support from her keyworker, appealed for places at two schools, school A and school B, which are much closer to her home address.
  2. The Council arranged an appeal hearing for October 2020, which by now was for a place in year 1. The appeal was held remotely and Ms X attended by telephone because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
  3. In her appeal submission Ms X set out that she was pregnant and had mobility issues. Ms X does not drive and needed to be within walking distance so she could be home for her disabled child to be dropped off from school. As part of her appeal Ms X provided a common assessment framework (CAF) form, completed by their previous council, which set out the needs of Ms X and her children. In this it set out the difficulties Ms X had taking her children to and from school on time due to the times her disabled child was collected and dropped off home. It also set out Ms X’s own medical issues and their impact.
  4. The Council’s case set out there was already 31 children in the one year 1 class at school B which was taught by one teacher. The extra pupil was a ‘looked after child’ which was a permitted exception to the infant class size rules (and so did not count as a breach of the legislation). To admit another child would breach the infant class size rules. At the appeal Ms X explained it was important to have a school as near as possible and the allocated school, school C, was too far away. The panel asked Ms X which school her eldest child attended and when Y last attended school.
  5. The panel decided that giving a place to Y would mean that the infant class size limit would be breached. The panel also concluded that the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been correctly applied in Y’s case.
  6. In the notes of the panel’s decision making, it referenced Ms X’s concerns that Y would always be late to school C, she would need to rely on after school clubs, Ms X’s medical issues and those of Y’s sibling and that Y was out of school. But the panel decided unanimously the decision to refuse Y a place was not unreasonable.
  7. The clerk to the appeal panel wrote to Ms X in October 2020 setting out the panel’s decision.

Findings

  1. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the appeal panel followed the Admission Appeals Code. We do this by examining the panel’s papers and the notes taken by the Clerk during the hearing. We do not have the power to overturn the panel’s decision, and we cannot give a child a place at the school. It is for the panel to decide what weight to give the evidence. As long as it properly considered the evidence put forward, the Ombudsman cannot say what conclusion the panel should have come to. If we find fault which calls the panel’s decision into question, we may ask for a new appeal hearing.
  2. The clerk’s notes record the panel was satisfied the admission of another child would breach infant class size legislation.
  3. The clerk’s notes of proceedings at the hearing and of the decision-making, and the panel’s decision letter, show 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. The Panel was sympathetic to Ms X’s circumstances but there are very limited grounds on which an infant class size appeal can be successful.
  4. Having accepted the Council’s case on infant class size prejudice and that the admission arrangements had been correctly applied the panel could only uphold Ms X’s appeal if it concluded the Council’s decision to refuse a place was so unreasonable as to be perverse. But the threshold for finding a decision perverse is very high. The clerk’s notes of the appeal show the panel properly considered the case and as there was no fault in the way the panel reached its decision, I cannot question the Panel’s decision to refuse the appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation as there was no evidence of fault in the way the admissions appeal panel considered the appeal.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings