Summary: Mrs B complained about the Independent Appeal Panel’s decision not to admit her daughter to her preferred school. We found that there was fault in the decision-making process and the decision letter did not properly explain the reasons for the Panel’s decision. However, neither of these failings called into question the Panel’s decision.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains about the Appeal Panel’s decision not to admit her daughter to her preferred school. She says the panel disregarded evidence from her daughter’s doctor and failed to properly consider the impact on her of refusing the appeal. She says the decision has caused a great deal of distress to her daughter and the whole family.

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:
• information provided by Mrs B;
• information provided by the school, including all the information submitted to the Appeal Panel and the notes taken by the Clerk during the hearing; and
• the School Admissions Appeals Code 2012 (‘the Code’).
6. Mrs B and the School Governors had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The appeal

7. Mrs B made an on-time application for a place at the school for her daughter, C. The Governors were able to offer places to all pupils who applied in categories 1 and 2. They also offered places to 12 pupils in category 3. No places were offered to applicants in categories 4 to 9. Mrs B’s application was in category 7, so she was not offered a place.
8. Mrs B appealed. The school is a Voluntary Aided school. The School Governors are the Admission Authority and are responsible for organising the Independent Appeal. The school used an appeals service provided by the local council, but we still hold the school responsible for any fault in the process.
9. Mrs B set out in detail the reasons for her appeal. A week before the appeal hearing she submitted additional evidence from C’s doctor. The school forwarded this to the clerk to the Appeal Panel. The clerk’s contemporaneous handwritten notes of the hearing show this information was included in the papers for the case. The notes refer to additional information received on 18 May and state that the chairman confirmed receipt of the additional information and that it had been read.
10. The Appeal hearing was held via video call because of COVID-19 restrictions. The Appeal Panel consisted of one lay member and two members with experience in education. So, the panel was properly constituted.
11. The Code sets out the process the Independent Appeal Panel must follow when considering an appeal.
12. The Panel must first consider whether the admission arrangements complied with the law and whether the school correctly applied them to the application. Mrs B’s application was unsuccessful because there were more applications than places at the school and all the places were filled by children who had more priority according to the school’s oversubscription criteria. The Panel was satisfied the admission criteria complied with the law and were correctly applied and I have seen no evidence to suggest this was not the case.
13. The panel must then consider whether the admission of an additional child or children would prejudice efficient education or the efficient use of resources at the school.
14. The school submitted a detailed written case to explain why it could not accept more pupils. Parents had an opportunity to submit questions about the school’s case. The Panel decided the school was full and could not admit any more pupils without disadvantaging existing pupils.
15. The panel must then consider each appellant’s case. For each individual appeal it must assess whether that child’s needs are so exceptional that they should override the prejudice to the school of admitting an additional pupil. This is known as the balancing stage and is a matter for the panel’s judgement considering all the available information.
16. At the hearing Mrs B put forward her case for C to be admitted to the school and answered questions put by the Panel.
17. The clerk’s notes and the appeal papers clearly record Mrs B’s case and her discussions with the Panel at the hearing. I have not repeated the details here to ensure her anonymity.
18. Mrs B says the clerk’s notes contain factual inaccuracies and insufficient detail in relation to C’s health conditions. The Code says, “the clerk must ensure an accurate record is taken of the points raised at the hearing, including the proceedings, attendance, voting and reasons for decisions”. However, the notes are not meant to be verbatim but only a summary of the information provided. I accept there are some inaccuracies in the notes. This was fault, but I do not consider this calls into question the panel’s decision because the panel members heard Mrs B’s submissions at the hearing and also read her written submissions. They were therefore aware of all relevant information when reaching their decision.
19. After hearing from Mrs B, the Panel retired to consider all the evidence. The clerk’s notes show the Panel discussed the case at length and considered it was “not a standout case against others”. They show the panel also considered C’s medical issues and the impact this had on her confidence and well-being but were satisfied there was no compelling argument that only her preferred school could help manage her needs. They said there were “no particular standout factors” that were unable to be managed at most schools.
20. The Code says that, in multiple appeals, the panel must not compare individual cases when deciding whether an appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school. However, where the panel finds there are more cases which outweigh prejudice than the school cannot admit, it must then compare the cases and uphold those with the strongest case for admission.
21. The Panel decided C’s case did not outweigh prejudice partly because her preferred school was not the only school that could meet her needs and partly because it was not a standout case against the others. So, it appears that the panel mixed the two stages rather than doing them sequentially. This was fault. However, I do not consider this affected the outcome of the appeal given that the panel was satisfied Mrs B had not put forward a compelling case that C’s medical issues could only be managed at her preferred school.
22. Mrs B says the panel did not consider her medical evidence properly. She feels, if it had done so, it would have allowed her appeal. The notes of the hearing show the chairperson confirmed receipt of the medical evidence and that it had been read. The notes of the decision-making show the panel considered C’s medical issues when reaching its decision. I am satisfied the panel took account of the medical evidence but did not consider it was strong enough to support a finding that C’s preferred school was the only school that could meet her needs. The Panel is entitled to make its own judgement about the evidence it considers and decide how much weight to give to that evidence. It is not obliged to follow the doctor’s recommendation.
23. Mrs B says she was not given an adequate opportunity to put forward all the points she wanted to make at the hearing. However, it is clear from the papers and the clerk’s notes that Mrs B provided a great deal of information to the Panel. I consider the further points Mrs B says she would have liked to raise are unlikely to have altered the Panel’s decision as they are not exceptional.

The decision letter

24. Following the appeal hearing, the clerk wrote to Mrs B explaining the Panel’s decision. The Code states that the clerk’s letter explaining the panel’s decision must contain a summary of relevant factors that were raised by the parties and considered by the panel and that the letter must give clear reasons for the panel’s decision including how and why any issues of fact or law were decided during the hearing.
25. The clerk’s letter set out the points made by the school. It also set out the reasons why Mrs B wanted C to attend the school and explained that the Panel did not consider those factors were sufficient to outweigh the prejudice to children who had already been admitted to the school. But the letter did not make it clear why the Panel decided Mrs B’s arguments were not sufficient to outweigh the prejudice to the school. This was fault and causes Mrs B uncertainty.
26. To Mrs B, her arguments are all reasons why C should have been offered a place at the school, so the Panel’s decision does not make sense. The letter should have made it clear why the Panel did not share her view and why it did not consider her arguments were strong enough to outweigh the prejudice to the school. Simply stating that her arguments were not strong enough does not allow her to understand the decision.
27. I do not, however, consider this calls the Panel’s decision into question as it is clear the Panel properly considered the appeal and the clerk’s notes set out the reasons for the decision.
28. Mrs B says there is no express mention of the doctor’s letter in the decision letter. The letter does not have to refer to each piece of evidence considered by the panel. As set out above, the evidence is that the panel considered this information.
29. Mrs B also says the decision letter makes no express mention of C’s medical conditions. I am satisfied that the decision letter does refer to C’s medical conditions.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. The school has agreed that, within one month, it will provide a copy of this decision to the council which provided the appeals service as a reminder of the proper process to ensure future appeals follow the Code and as a reminder of the importance of accurately communicating the reasons for the panel’s decision to the appellant.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I find there was fault in the decision-making process. I also find the decision letter did not properly explain the reasons for the Panel’s decision. But I am satisfied that neither of these failings calls into question the Panel’s decision.
32. I have completed my investigation on the basis that the school has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman