Summary: Mr R has a bought a complaint about the school admissions appeal panel’s decision to refuse his Child Z admission to his preferred school. However, the panel properly followed the School Admissions Appeal Code and we cannot question the merits of a decision made properly. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of fault by the panel or Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr R, is making a complaint related to an unsuccessful school admissions appeal for his son, who I refer to as Child Z. Specifically, Mr R says:

1. the appeals panel heard two separate appeals for different school during the appeal hearing, meaning each were not assessed on their merits;

2. the person appointed to assist him during the appeals process was also acting for the Council in a capacity of representing the schools interests, thereby causing a conflict of interest;

3. the appeals panel did not consider his wife’s medical difficulties as a reason to why Child Z should be admitted to the schools under appeal and;

4. the school that has been offered to Child Z is a considerable distance further away than the Council says it is.

2. Mr R feels the decision by the appeals panel is prejudiced and that not admitting Child Z will have an adverse impact on the family. As a desired outcome, he wants a fair appeal hearing.

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 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).
5. 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).

Back to top

How I considered this complant

6. I have reviewed Mr R’s complaint to the Ombudsman and his appeal to the school admissions appeal panel. I have also had regard to the responses of the Council, the notes of appeals clerk and application policy. Both Mr R and the Council received an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision before I reached a final view of this complaint.

Back to top

What I found

Background and legislative framework

7. In accordance with Section 13 of the Education Act 1996, all local authorities must ensure that primary and secondary education is available to meet the needs of the population in their area.
8. The school admissions appeal panel (the Panel) sits as an independent admission panels for the benefit of children, parents, schools, and academies. It performs a judicial function and must be independent, impartial and transparent in their decision-making at all times. Panel members must not have a vested interest in the outcome of any stages of the appeal or be involved in an earlier stage of the proceedings, for example the decision to refuse admission.
9. The Published Admission Number (PAN) is the maximum number of pupils that the admission authority will admit to each year group.
10. School admission appeals by the Panel are governed by School Admissions Appeal Code (the Code). The Code is statutory guidance and must be followed. When considering an appeal which is not subject to infant class size legislation, the Panel must consider the following:

First stage: examining the decision to refuse admission

11. In the first stage of the decision-making process, the Panel must have consideration as to whether:

• admission arrangements comply with the School Admissions Code and all other admissions law
• admission arrangements were correctly and impartially applied
• admission of additional children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources

Second stage: balancing the arguments

12. At this stage, the Panel must balance the arguments put forward by both the admission authority and the appellant. It must take into account the appellant’s reasons for wanting their child to attend the school in question, including what it can offer that other schools cannot.
13. If the Panel considers that the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal. When making decisions, the panel should:

• consider each point raised by the parties
• communicate to the clerk how each point was considered
• ensure the reasons for the final decision are explicit
• reach a decision by a simple majority of votes cast (where the votes are equally divided the chair has a second or casting vote)
• either uphold or dismiss an appeal without it being subject to any specified conditions

After the appeal hearing

14. After the appeal hearing, the clerk should tell the parties of the Panel’s decision. The decision letter must contain a summary of relevant factors that each party raised and the Panel’s considerations. It must also give clear reasons for the Panel’s decision, including how the Panel decided on any points raised by the parties during the hearing.
15. The clerk or chair must sign the decision letter and send a copy to all parties within 5 school days, wherever possible. The clerk should inform all parties if they expect a delay in sending out the decision letter.

Chronology of events

16. In November 2020, Mr R submitted an appeal for Child Z to attend the preferred school (School A). He said his appeal was on the grounds that School A is close to his home and because his wife has a medical condition. Mr R says to refuse admission would make family life difficult.
17. At the same time, Mr R also appealed a decision to refuse Child Z a place at another preferred school (School B).
18. In early January 2021, the Panel heard Mr R’s appeals for both School A and School B. The notes of the clerk show the Panel had regards to whether the admission arrangements complied with the law and Code and whether they had been properly applied in this case. The Panel resolved that they had.
19. Second, the Panel considered the representations made by School A not to admit Child Z. The Panel noted School A’s concerns it is oversubscribed and above the PAN. It also noted that to admit further pupils would reduce individual pupil and teacher contact and immediate funding would not be available. Also, School A said those classrooms were too small to accommodate further pupils. It also said the school was under pressure given the number of children it supported with health and educational needs, as well as a significant number of children whose home language was not English. On that basis, the Panel accepted School A’s point that to admit any more children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.
20. Finally, the Panel moved to consider whether the circumstances and needs of Child Z and Mr R’s family outweighed the prejudice to School A. The notes of the clerk demonstrate that when the Panel considered this issue. Primarily, Mr R raised that his wife had a medical condition and that School A would enable her, given its close proximity to home, to collect Child Z. The Panel noted, however, that the professional supporting medical evidence presented had not demonstrated that School A is the only school which could cater for Child Z.
21. In January 2021, the clerk issued Mr R the decision letter following the appeal hearing. The decision was not to admit Child Z to School A on the grounds it was oversubscribed and faced considerable pressures, as well as challenges supporting children with mixed needs. Moreover, the clerk noted Mr R considered the school offered by the Council (School C) was too far away and his wife would have difficultly helping Child Z with travel due to her health. However, the clerk said the Panel felt the medical information provided by Mr R did not evidence that School A was the only school which could accommodate Child Z and the family’s needs. On that basis, the clerk said the Panel’s view was Mr R’s case did not outweigh the prejudice to School A should it allow admission.

My findings

22. Importantly, my findings in this complaint and draft decision are strictly limited to Mr R’s appeal for School A and the Panel’s consideration of that appeal. The Ombudsman has received a separate complaint for the appeal of School B and this will be dealt with as a separate complaint.
23. By law, I cannot question the merits of the Panel’s decision to refuse admission to Child Z if it followed the Code without fault. I must therefore have regard to whether Mr R’s appeal for School A was conducted procedurally correctly.
24. In my view, the Panel properly had regard to the Code. It correctly had regard to School A’s admission arrangements and the pressures it faces. By considering the factors outlined in paragraph 19, the Panel resolved that to admit Child Z would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources. The Panel then weighed this against Mr R’s reasons for appeal, specifically the matter of his wife’s health condition. In conclusion, the Panel decided Mr R’s family circumstances did not outweigh the prejudice School A should it admit Child Z. I have not determined any fault and so I have no authority to question the decision made.
25. I note Mr R is of the view that because his appeal hearing for School A was mixed with the appeal for School B, each appeal was not assessed on their individual merits. Further, I recognise Mr R’s concerns that School C is too far away and the Panel did not consider his wife’s medical condition. However, I found Mr R’s appeal was assessed on its individual merits given the Panel considered all elements of the Code with respect to School A specifically. The notes of the clerk also demonstrated the issue of Mr R’s wife’s health condition was considered. I cannot consider the distance of School C since the Code was properly followed and the determination to refuse admission is a merits-based decision. However, I would emphasise to Mr R that local admission authorities measure distance using a computerised mapping system which is more accurate than other methods.
26. Finally, Mr R has said the person appointed to assist him during the appeals process was also acting for the Council during the appeal hearing. Specifically, he says this individual was the presenting officer who put forward the School A to refuse Child Z admission. He feels this constitutes a conflict of interest. However, I have not found any evidence of a conflict or that this matter prejudiced the decision of the Panel. Further, the Panel took its decisions independent of the individual referred to by Mr R. For instance, he did not undertake the balancing test to determine whether Child Z would be admitted. For those reasons, I do not consider the Council was not a fault in this respect.

Back to top

Final decision

27. The Panel was not at fault because it followed the Code and considered Mr R’s appeal on its individual merits and with due regard to the points he raised. For that reason, I cannot by law question the merits of the Panel’s decision to refuse admission to Child Z.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman