Summary: A parent complained about the independent appeal panel’s refusal of her appeal for a Reception place for her daughter at her preferred primary school. But we do not have sufficient grounds to investigate this matter. This is because any fault by the panel did not cause the parent an injustice which warrants our further involvement.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Miss B sent with her complaint and her comments in response to a draft of this decision. I also took account of the appeal documents in Miss B’s case, which were provided by the Council.

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 infant class size limit in the current year, or in future years as the group moves up through the school;
• 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 group this year is 45. At the appeal hearing the Council confirmed that all 45 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 information I have seen about pupil numbers and the organisation of classes at the School, and about its admission arrangements, I consider that panel members had good reason to reach those conclusions.
7. Miss B is correct in saying that the infant class size limit of 30 would not be breached by an extra admission this year as the 45 children in Reception will mostly be taught in one space by two teachers, effectively in two groups of 22 and 23. But I understand that because of the way classes are arranged for Year 1 and 2 children, the limit of 30 in one of those classes would be exceeded in two years’ time as this year’s Reception group reaches Year 2. As a result there will be infant class size prejudice to the School in future.
8. However, I am not convinced the School presented a case for future prejudice in its appeal case statements. In addition it is not clear from the appeal records how the panel reached its view that class size prejudice was established. I also consider the panel’s decision letter to Miss B was unclear in this respect.
9. Nonetheless, the information I subsequently received from the Council about the organisation of infant classes at the School indicates that future prejudice would be caused by accepting another child now. So although I have some doubts about the way the panel arrived at its decision from the information provided at the appeal, I do not there is reason to question its overall conclusion that infant class size prejudice would result from a further admission.
10. Miss B also felt that because the panel looked first at whether the infant class size limit had already been reached, this meant her appeal had been pre-judged. However I consider the panel acted correctly in this respect. The statutory School Admission Appeals Code sets out the procedure which panels must follow in their decision-making, and this specifies that panels must start by deciding if the case for infant class size prejudice is made out. But the panel must then go on to consider if any of the statutory reasons for upholding the appeal apply, as I set out above in paragraph 4.
11. 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 Miss B put forward in her appeal case statement and at the hearing. In addition, I see no evidence to suggest the panel did not take proper account of Miss B’s case in reaching its decision.
12. But 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. Further, 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 Miss B’s personal circumstances.
13. In effect the panel could only uphold Miss B’s appeal if it found that 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 have reason to find fault in the way the panel reached its view about reasonableness in Miss B’s case.
14. So I consider there were deficiencies by the panel in Miss B’s case because of the way it dealt with the infant class size prejudice issue. But I am not convinced we would have grounds to say this affected the outcome of the appeal. I also see no sign of any other significant fault in the appeal processes and procedures in Miss B’s case.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We do not have reason to investigate Miss B’s complaint about the independent appeal panel’s refusal of her appeal regarding a place for her daughter at her preferred primary school. This is because any fault in the way the panel dealt with and decided matters in her case did not cause her an injustice to justify our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman