Summary: there were no faults which call the Independent Appeal Panel’s decision not to admit Mr F’s son to the School into question.

The complaint

1. Mr F complains about the Independent Appeal Panel’s decision not to admit his son to the school.
2. In particular, Mr F complains:
• the Panel did not ask any questions about the school’s case;
• the Panel asked him to explain what he meant by ‘prejudice’ to his son, and asked him to be quick; and
• the decision letter following the appeal does not explain the Panel’s decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))
4. 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.
5. 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

6. I have considered
• information provided by Mr F;
• information provided by the school, including all the information submitted to the Appeal Panel, and the notes taken by the Clerk during the appeal; and
• the School Admissions Appeals Code 2012.
7. I have invited Mr F and the Governors to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. The School is a Voluntary Aided School. The School Governors are the Admission Authority and are responsible for organising the Independent Appeal.
9. 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.
10. The Panel must first consider whether the School has correctly applied the admission criteria to the application. Mr F’s application was unsuccessful because there were more applications than places at the school and his son was unsuccessful in the ballot to allocate places when the school is oversubscribed.
11. The Panel was satisfied the admission criteria were correctly applied. There is no fault in the Panel’s decision.
12. The Panel must then consider whether the school can accept any more pupils without disadvantaging those already given places. This is known as the case for prejudice. The school submitted a detailed written case to explain why it could not accept more pupils. The Panel did not ask any questions, but Mr F asked questions which were answered by the school’s representative.
13. It appears the Panel did not accept the school was full, but accepted the school could not take all the children whose parents had appealed.
14. The Panel must then consider Mr F’s case for his son to be admitted to the school. This is known as the balancing stage where the prejudice to Mr F’s son if he is not given a place is balanced against the prejudice to the school if he is.
15. The Clerk’s notes and the appeal papers clearly record Mr F’s case and his discussions with the Panel at the hearing. After hearing from Mr F, the Panel decided the prejudice to his son did not outweigh the prejudice to the school. There is no fault in the Panel’s decision. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.
16. Mr F complains the Panel did not ask any questions about the school’s case. The school submitted a detailed written case. The Panel is not obliged to ask questions. In any case, Mr F asked questions which the school’s representative answered.
17. Mr F also complained the Panel asked him to explain what he meant by ‘prejudice’ to his son, and asked him to be quick. He believes this suggests the Panel did not understand the term. The Panel is entitled to ask any questions it considers appropriate. The Chair is responsible for the conduct of the hearing and should ensure parents have an opportunity to present their case. I am satisfied Mr F had an opportunity to make his case.
18. Mr F complains the decision letter following the appeal (an email) does not explain the Panel’s decision. The letter explains the Panel’s decision, but it does not “contain a summary of relevant factors that were raised by the parties and considered by the panel.” (School Admission Appeals Code 2012, paragarph 2.25)
19. The decision letter does not meet this requirement of the Code, but this does not call the outcome of the appeal into question.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have completed my investigation. There is no fault in the appeal which calls the Panel’s decision not to admit Mr F’s son to the school into question.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman