Summary: A parent complained about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to reject his appeal concerning the refusal of a place for his son at his preferred primary school. But we do not have grounds to investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient sign of fault in the way the panel considered the appeal to warrant our further involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, complained about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to turn down his appeal for a place for his son (‘Y’) at his preferred primary school (‘the School’). In particular Mr X complained that the panel:

• wrongly accepted that the School did not have capacity to admit Y given it had coped with a larger class in his year group in the past;
• lacked diversity;
• was biased in favour of the School;
• unreasonably failed to verify the School’s information about home to school distance measurements;
• did not take proper account of his appeal case relating to his wife’s health issues; and
• did not provide adequate reasons for its decision.

Back to top

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 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 Mr X provided with his complaint and the comments he made in response to a draft version of this decision. I also took account of documents about Mr X’s appeal which were supplied by the Council.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X first applied for a place for Y at the School in 2019. Mr X’s application was refused as Y’s year group at the School was already full. Mr X subsequently appealed about this matter and the School asked the Council to organise the appeal on its behalf.
6. But Mr X’s appeal was unsuccessful. He then complained to us and we found fault in the appeal panel’s decision-making process. As a result we recommended a fresh appeal.
7. However Mr X’s second appeal was also unsuccessful and he made a further complaint to us. We went on to find fault with the second appeal panel as it had wrongly applied the law in its consideration of Mr X’s case. Therefore we recommended another appeal hearing.
8. But the new appeal panel rejected Mr X’s third appeal. He then complained to us again.

Analysis

9. Appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal for a primary school place in Year 3 or above. In particular the panel must consider whether:

• the admission arrangements comply with the law;
• the admission arrangements were properly applied to the child in question.

It must then consider whether admitting another child would prejudice the education of others. If the panel find there would be prejudice it must then consider the appellant’s arguments. If the panel decides the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal.

10. The panel for Mr X’s appeal decided that the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and correctly applied in Y’s case. The panel also agreed with the School’s case that admitting an additional child would cause prejudice to the School and the children already going there.
11. The School’s Permitted Admission Number (PAN) is 30. At the time of Mr X’s appeal there were 33 children in Y’s year group. But there had previously been 34 in the class before a child left.
12. Mr X’s case was that the School had already shown it could manage with 34 children in the class so it was not tenable to say that going back to 34 would cause prejudice to the School and other pupils.
13. But I do not see the panel was necessarily bound to accept that having 34 children in the class would not cause prejudice to the School and the education of other pupils, just because there had been 34 in the past.
14. The panel had to make its own judgement, based on the information provided at the time of the appeal, about whether taking another child and going four above PAN would cause prejudice in current circumstances. However from the evidence provided, I am not convinced there is any sign of fault in the way the panel considered this matter in Mr X’s case. I consider the panel was reasonably entitled to reach the conclusion it did based on the information presented to it at the appeal.
15. In addition, I see no reason to fault the panel for deciding the admission arrangements were correctly applied in Y’s case.
16. Mr X felt the panel should have verified the measurements given in the School’s appeal case regarding the distances from his home to the School and to the school Y currently attends. Mr X said doubted the School had given the correct information because it had presented misleading information in his previous appeals. Mr X also provided his own distance calculations which differed to those presented by the School.
17. It is unclear where Mr X obtained his distance measurements. But the School’s were provided by the Council, which uses a computerised Geographical Information System based on precise address points to assess home to school distances for all applications for school places.
18. The panel accepted the accuracy of the distance measurements the School quoted without the need for further verification. However I am not convinced we would find grounds to fault the panel for not necessarily doing further checks. In particular I do not see the panel was presented with sufficient evidence to suggest the School’s figures were wrong.
19. Mr X was also unhappy about the lack of ethnic diversity in the appeal panel, and in the two previous panels in his case, and he felt this may have been a factor in its decision-making in his case.
20. Mr X may well have made a valid point about the desirability of recruiting appeal panel members who reflect the diversity of the local community. But I do not see we have a remit to comment on this wider policy issue about the constitution of appeal panels. Our focus is on whether there was any fault in relation to the panel which heard Mr X’s particular appeal. However I do not see we would have grounds to find fault with the panel on the basis of its lack of diversity.
21. The School Admission Appeals Code (‘the Code’) is statutory guidance issued by the government which covers arrangements for admission appeals. We may not find fault with a panel if it has acted in accordance with the Code.
22. The Code sets out various requirements as to the constitution of panels and the role of panel members. But the Code makes no stipulations about the diversity of panels. From the information provided, I see no reason to suggest that the panel in Mr X’s case was not constituted in in line with the Code’s requirements.
23. Mr X also complained the panel was biased against him and in favour of the School. In particular Mr X said the panel chairperson helped the School’s representative answer some of his questions.
24. However, having gone through the appeal clerk’s minutes from the hearing and the panel’s decision-making I did not see any indications of bias by panel members. I note the chairperson made some interventions during Mr X’s questioning of the School’s representative. But I consider her comments were largely points of clarification or related to factual matters, rather than in support of the School’s case.
25. Mr X felt the panel should have been more sympathetic regarding his wife’s health problems and the impact this had on their ability to manage the school run to Y’s current school.
26. But I consider that the clerk’s notes from the hearing, and the panel’s decision letter, indicate that panel members understood and took suitable account of the information Mr X provided about this matter and other aspects of his appeal his case. It is also evident that Mr X was given a reasonable opportunity to make his case and to question the School’s case, and I note that at the end of the proceedings Mr X agreed he had said all he wanted to say.
27. Mr X felt he had a strong case and there were compelling reasons for Y to be given a place at the School, so he was understandably disappointed by the panel’s decision. But at the end of the day the panel was entitled to reach its own view about the matter, having weighed up the information it received from both sides at the appeal. I consider the clerk’s notes and the panel’s decision letter are evidence that the panel properly followed this balancing process, and that they provide a suitable account of its reasons for reaching the judgement it made in Mr X’s case.
28. I see no sign of fault in the appeal process, or in the way the panel reached its decision in Mr X’s case, which would give us reason to question that decision. Therefore I consider that we would not be justified in investigating Mr X’s complaint.

Final decision

29. We do not have reason to investigate Mr X’s complaint about the appeal panel’s decision to reject his appeal regarding a place for his son at the School. This is because there is insufficient sign of fault by the panel in Mr X’s case to justify our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman