Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and so we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for his son.

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 cannot question whether an independent school admissions appeals 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. If we find fault, which calls into question the panel’s decision, we may ask for a new appeal hearing. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I issued a draft decision and considered the complainant’s comments.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X’s son (Y) is due to start Reception in September 2021. Mr X applied for a place at School C. The school has a set of oversubscription criteria used to decide which children will be offered a place if there are more applications than places available. These give priority to children living at the same address as a brother or sister (sibling) who attend the school. School C is a community-controlled school and so the Council is the admission authority and responsible for school admissions.
7. Mr X told the Council Y has a sister (Z) who also attends School C. Mr X said he and Z’s mother have shared custody of Z who spends an equal amount of time with both parents. The Council asked Mr X for information about Z’s living arrangements. The Council decided that over six months Z spent an equal amount of time living with both parents. Based on its determined admission arrangements, the Council used the address to which Z’s child benefit was paid to decide her home address. This was Z’s mother’s address. Therefore, because Y and Z were considered to live at different addresses, the Council did not award Y the sibling criterion referred to in paragraph 6.
8. When the Council offered places at School Z in April 2021, it did not offer Y a place. It offered places to children in the “distance” criterion up to a maximum distance of 0.422 miles. Because Mr X lives further away than this distance, the Council did not offer Y a place. Mr X appealed the decision.
9. Independent school admission appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. The law says the size of an infant class must not be more than 30 pupils per teacher. There are only limited circumstances in which more than 30 children can be admitted. There are special rules governing appeals for reception and years 1 and 2, where admitting another child would mean there would be more than 30 pupils per teacher. Appeals under these rules are known as “infant class size appeals”. The rules say the panel must consider whether:
• admitting another child would breach the class size limit;
• the admission arrangements comply with the law;
• the admission arrangements were properly applied to the case;
• the decision to refuse a place was one which a reasonable authority would have made in the circumstances.
10. What is ‘unreasonable’ is a high test, and for it to be met, the panel would need to be sure the decision to refuse a place was “perverse” or “outrageous”. For that reason, panels rarely find an admission authority’s decision to be unreasonable. Mrs X’s appeal was governed by infant class size legislation.
11. In his appeal Mr X explained why he wanted Y to attend School C. He explained why he felt the Council was wrong to use child benefit to decide a child’s address. Mr X explained the problems it would cause if Y could not attend School C.
12. The clerk’s notes show the panel considered information from the school and Mr X. The panel decided the school’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. The panel considered Mrs X’s reasons for wanting a place. The panel decided it was not an unreasonable decision to refuse admission. The panel decided that none of the grounds for allowing an infant class size appeal had been met. This is a decision the panel was entitled to reach. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.
13. I understand Mr X is unhappy his appeal was unsuccessful. But each panel needs to reach a decision based on the information before it. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the panel decided Mr X’s appeal for the Ombudsman to become involved.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and so we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman