Summary: A parent complained that the school admission appeal unfairly rejected her appeal about the refusal of a place for her daughter at her preferred primarily school. However we do not have reason to start an investigation of the complaint as there is no sign of fault by 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 Mrs B sent with her complaint. I also gave Mrs B a chance to comment on a draft of my decision before I reach a final view in her case. In addition I took account of documents the Council provided about Mrs B’s appeal and the appeal involving the other child in question..

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 in Reception is 45. All 45 places had been filled by the time of the appeal hearing.
6. The panel decided that the infant class size limit would be exceeded if C was also given a place. It also concluded the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been correctly applied in C’s case. From the records of what the Council presented to the panel about these matters, I consider it was justified in reaching those conclusions.
7. In particular, I note the infant class size limit of 30 would not be breached this year because the Reception year at the School will be taught in two classes of 22 and 23 children. But Year 1 and Year 2 children are taught together in three classes of 30. So admitting an extra child this year would lead to the infant class limit being breached in future years as the Reception group moves up.
8. In addition, from the information provided I consider the panel was entitled to conclude that the Council correctly treated Mrs B’s application for a school place as late.
9. I also consider the appeal clerk’s records from the hearings and the panel’s decision letter in Mrs B’s case show that panel members noted and understood the points she made in her appeal statement and in person. I see no evidence to suggest the panel did not take proper account of Mrs B’s appeal case in reaching its decision.
10. The panel could only uphold Mrs B’s appeal if it concluded the Council’s decision to refuse C a place at 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 reason to say there was fault in the way the panel reached its view about reasonableness in Mrs B’s case.
11. 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 or whether a sibling already attends the school.
12. Appeal panel decisions are also binding on the Council. So if an appeal is successful the Council has to give the child a place at the school in question, even though it would have opposed the extra admission at the appeal hearing.
13. At the end of the day the panel for the School’s appeals was entitled to reach its own view about each appeal it heard, taking account of the particular information provided by the appellant in each case.
14. However I also examined the records from the successful appeal for the other child. I note the Council presented the same case against a further admission as it did for Mrs B’s appeal. But this time the panel decided the reasonableness test was not met in view of the other child’s particular circumstances. But I do not see there was sign of fault in the panel’s decision-making in this other case, or that the decision implies the panel was at fault in the way it dealt with Mrs B’s case.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We do not have grounds to investigate Mrs B’s complaint about unfairness in the way the appeal panel dealt with her appeal regarding a place for her daughter at her preferred primary school. This is because there is no sign of fault by the panel.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman