Summary: A parent complained about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to reject his appeal about the Council’s refusal of a Reception place for his son at his preferred primary school. But we do not have grounds to investigate this complaint because there is no sign of fault by the panel.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if, for example, we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr B provided with his complaint. I also gave Mr B an opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision before I reached a final view in his case. In addition I took account of documents the Council sent about Mr B’s appeal.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. In particular the law says the size of an infant class must not be more than 30 pupils per teacher, with very limited exceptions. In 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, and were properly applied to the case;
• the decision to refuse a place was one which a reasonable authority would have made in the circumstances.

What is ‘reasonable’ is a high test. To uphold an appeal on this ground the panel would need to be sure that the decision to refuse a place was “perverse” or “outrageous”. For that reason, panels in infant class appeals rarely find an admission authority’s decision to be unreasonable.

5. The School’s admission number for the Reception year is 30. At the appeal hearing the Council confirmed that all 30 places had been taken. As a result the panel decided the infant class size limit would be breached if C was admitted as well. The panel also concluded that the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been correctly applied in C’s case.
6. From the records of what the Council presented to the panel about these matters, I consider that panel members had good reason to reach those conclusions.
7. I also consider the appeal clerk’s record of proceedings at the hearing and the panel’s decision letter show that panel members noted and understood the points C’s mother (‘Miss D’) presented in her appeal case statement and in person at the hearing. I see no evidence to suggest the panel did not take account of Mr B’s and Miss D’s case in reaching its decision.
8. At the end of the day the panel was entitled to reach its own view about the information it read and heard from both sides at the appeal. In addition, the panel had to apply the strict rules required by law regarding the size of infant classes. In effect, this meant it had little scope to give weight to Mr B’s and Miss D’s personal circumstances.
9. The panel could only uphold Mr B’s and Miss D’s appeal if it concluded the Council’s decision to refuse admission to the School was so unreasonable as to be perverse. But the threshold for finding a decision perverse is very high, and from the information provided I do not see we would find grounds to say there was fault in the way the panel reached its view about reasonableness in their case. I also see no sign of any other fault in the appeal processes and procedures.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We do not have reason to start an investigation of Mr B’s complaint about the admission appeal panel’s refusal of his appeal for a place for his son at his preferred primary school. This is because there is no sign of fault in the way the panel dealt with and decided matters in his case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman