Summary: Mr F complains following his unsuccessful appeal for a place for his son at a primary school. There is no fault in the appeal. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.

The complaint

1. Mr F complains following his unsuccessful appeal for a place for his son at a primary school. In particular, Mr F complains places were allocated to late applicants ahead of his son.

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:
• Mr F’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 have invited Mr F and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. The school is a community school. The Local Authority is the Admission Authority and is responsible for admissions and appeals.
8. Mr F applied for a place for his son in Reception. His application and subsequent appeal were unsuccessful. Mr F complained to the Ombudsman.
9. The Ombudsman checks the appeal was carried out properly. We do not decide whether Mr F’s son 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. There will be three reception classes of thirty children, each with one teacher. The school explained in a submission to the Panel that it does not have the space or resources to fund an extra teacher. Although I have not seen a record of the decision, it appears the Panel decided that infant class size prejudice rules apply to Mr F’s appeal. There are no grounds for the Ombudsman to question it.
15. The Panel considered whether the Council had 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 all the places were given to children with more priority than Mr F’s son. Mr F’s son was in category 4. The last place was allocated to a child in category 4 who lived closer to the school.
16. Mr F questioned whether places had been allocated fairly. The papers appeared to show only 87 of the 90 places available were allocated on National Offer Day.
17. The Council’s representative explained that all 90 places were allocated on National Offer Day, but three places were later declined. These places were allocated to children on the school’s waiting list.
18. The three places went to children who had more priority than Mr F but whose parents had applied late. Late applicants are not offered places on National Offer Day. They join the waiting list where they are eligible for any places which become available after National Offer Day. The waiting list is ranked according to the school’s oversubscription criteria.
19. Mr F thinks this is unfair to parents, like him, who applied on time.
20. The Panel decided that Council had correctly applied the published admission criteria. There is no fault in the Panel’s decision.
21. Finally, the Panel had to consider whether the decision to refuse Mr F’s son a place was one which a reasonable admission authority would have made in the circumstances of the case.
22. The Clerk’s notes and the decision letter record Mr F’s discussions with the Panel at the hearing.
23. A reasonable admission authority can only admit children in accordance with the published admission criteria. The Panel was satisfied Mr F’s application was considered in accordance with the published admission criteria. The Panel could not, therefore, uphold Mr F’s appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault in the appeal. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman