Summary: A parent complained that the Council treated her unfairly by refusing her appeal for a place for her daughter at her preferred primary school while at the same time agreeing to admit another child. But we do not have grounds to investigate this matter because there is insufficient sign of fault by the Council or the appeal 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 Miss B provided with her complaint, and her comments in response to a draft version of this decision. I also took account of documents sent by the Council about Miss B’s appeal and the appeal involving the other child.

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”.

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 also admitted. In addition, the panel concluded that the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been correctly applied in her 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 records from the hearing and the panel’s decision letter show that panel members noted and understood the points Miss B made in her appeal case statement and in person at the hearing. So I see no evidence to suggest the panel did not take proper account of Miss B’s case in reaching its decision.
8. In effect, the panel could only uphold Miss B’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 have grounds to say there was fault in the way the panel reached its view about reasonableness in Miss B’s case.
9. Admission authorities are responsible for setting up admission appeal panels. But panels act entirely independently in deciding the appeals. In addition panels must consider each case separately on its own individual merits. So they do not decide cases by comparing where appellants rank under the admissions criteria, such as home to school distance.
10. Further, appeal panel decisions are binding on the authority. So if an appeal is successful the authority must admit the child to the school in question even though it opposed the extra admission at the appeal hearing.
11. Ultimately the panel for the School’s appeals was entitled to reach its own view about the information provided by the opposing sides in all the cases it heard.
12. I have also considered the records from the appeal which succeeded. I note the Council presented the same case against a further admission as at Miss B’s appeal. But this time the panel decided the reasonableness test was not met in the light of the appellant’s particular circumstances. I do not see sign of fault in the panel’s decision-making in this respect. I am also not convinced the decision indicates there was unfairness by the panel or the Council in the way they dealt with Miss B’s case.

Back to top

Draft decision

13. We do not have reason to start an investigation of Miss B’s complaint that the Council treated her unfairly in the appeal process regarding its refusal of a place for her daughter at her preferred primary school. This is because there is insufficient sign of fault by the Council or the appeal panel.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman