Summary: Mrs M complains about the Independent Appeal Panel’s decision not to admit her daughter to the school. There is no fault in the Panel’s decision. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs M complains following her unsuccessful appeal for a place for her daughter, G, to join the school in September 2020. She does not think the appeal was fair. Mrs M complains another child has been admitted to the school even though the school is full.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. The Ombudsman cannot question a school admission appeal panel’s decision 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))
3. We check the Independent Appeal Panel followed the Code of Practice issued by the Department for Education and the hearing was fair.  We do this by examining 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. If we find fault, which calls the panel’s decision into question, we may ask for a new appeal hearing.
4. If we are satisfied with a panel’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 have considered:
• Mrs M’s comments;
• all the information presented to the Appeal Panel, the notes taken by the Clerk during the appeal, and the Panel’s decision letter following the appeal; and
• the School Admissions Appeals Code 2012.
6. I invited Mrs M and the Governors to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. The school is a Foundation School. The Governors are the Admission Authority and are responsible for admissions and appeals.
8. Mrs M applied for a place for her daughter in Reception. Her application and subsequent appeal were unsuccessful. Seven months after the appeal, when she learned another pupil had been admitted to the school, Mrs M complained to the Ombudsman.
9. The Ombudsman checks the appeal was carried out properly. We do not decide whether Mrs M’s daughter should be given a place at the school.
10. The School Admission Appeals Code 2012 issued by the Department for Education sets out the process the Independent Appeal Panel must follow when considering an appeal.
11. No more than 30 children can be taught by a single teacher in an infant class (Reception and Years 1 and 2). If this is not possible without reorganisation or employing extra staff, and this would harm the education of other pupils, “infant class size prejudice” rules apply to the appeal.
12. When infant class size prejudice rules apply, the Appeal Panel can only legally uphold an appeal if:
1. the child would have been offered a place were it not for some flaw in the admission arrangements; and/or
2. the child would have been offered a place if the admissions arrangements had been implemented properly; and/or
3. the decision to refuse a place was one which no reasonable authority would have made.
13. The threshold for appeals made under c. above is extremely high. The Panel cannot legally uphold appeals which do not fall into the categories above, no matter how persuasive the appeal otherwise is.
14. The Panel considered whether the infant class size prejudice rules applied to Mrs M’s appeal. The hearing was held remotely because of the pandemic, so parents were invited to submit questions on the school’s case in advance. The Panel heard that forty-five children are admitted to reception and taught in two classes of 22 and 23 children. Years one and two are taught in three classes of thirty children. The School explained in its submission to the Panel that it does not have resources to accommodate an extra teacher. The Panel decided, therefore, that infant class size prejudice rules apply to Mrs M’s appeal. The Panel made its decision without fault. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions made without fault.
15. The Panel also considered whether the admission arrangements complied with the law and decided they did.
16. The Panel then considered whether the Governors had correctly applied the admission criteria to the application. Mrs M’s application was unsuccessful because there were more applications than places at the school, and all the places were given to children with more priority than Mrs M’s daughter. The last place was given to a child living closer to the school. The Panel decided that Governors had correctly applied the admission criteria.
17. Finally, the Panel had to consider whether the decision to refuse Mrs M’s daughter a place was one which a reasonable admission authority would have made in the circumstances of the case.
18. The Clerk’s notes and the decision letter record Mrs M’s case and her discussions with the Panel at the hearing.
19. A reasonable admission authority can only admit children in accordance with the published admission criteria. The Panel was satisfied Mrs M’s application was considered in accordance with the published admission criteria. The Panel could not, therefore, uphold Mrs M’s appeal.
20. Mrs M complains that another child has since been admitted to the school even though the school is full. Mrs M thinks this is unfair. She says she lives closer to the school, and she is almost certain there could be no reason for the other child to be admitted.
21. It is not possible to speculate why another child was admitted to the school. Without compelling evidence of fault causing injustice, I will not investigate another child’s admission to the school.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have completed my investigation. There is no fault in the Panel’s decision not to admit Mrs M’s daughter to the school.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman