Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council provided inaccurate information to the Appeal Panel considering her appeal for a place at School D for her child C. We have not found fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained that the information provided by Suffolk County Council (the Council) to the Admission Appeal Panel in respect of the numbers of children in each year group was inaccurate. Specifically, she said the school had told her that pupil numbers exceeded the PAN in all year groups, not just in KS2. This caused Mrs B uncertainty and distress about whether the appeal panel considered inaccurate information.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(b), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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 the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mrs B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Admissions arrangements

6. All schools must have a set of admission arrangements containing oversubscription criteria. The school’s admission authority uses these to decide which children will receive an offer of a place if there are more applications than places available. The school’s admission authority sets the admission arrangements.
7. Oversubscription criteria will often be based on catchment areas. Children whose address falls inside a catchment area will normally be given higher priority for admission to the school than those living outside the catchment area.
8. A school’s admission arrangements must also contain a Published Admission Number. This is the number of places the school will offer at each point of entry. The point of entry is when the school normally admits children. In an infant or primary school this is usually the reception year.

Admissions Appeals

9. Parents/carers have the right to appeal an admission authority’s decision not to offer their child a school place.
10. Appeal hearings must be held in private and conducted in the presence of all panel members and parties. Appeal panels must act according to the principles of natural justice.
11. A clerk supports the appeal panel. Parents can submit information in support of their appeal. The clerk must send all papers required for the hearing a reasonable time before the date of the hearing. This includes information from the appellant and the admission authority.
12. Appeal Panels must follow a two-stage decision making process.
13. At Stage 1 the panel examines the decision to refuse admission. The panel must consider whether:
• the admissions arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements set out in the School Admissions Code;
• the admission arrangements were applied correctly; and if
• the admission of additional children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.
14. If a panel decides that admitting further children would “prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources” they move to the second stage of the process.
15. At Stage 2 the panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for the child to be admitted.

What happened

16. Mrs B applied for a place for her child C at School D. They lived outside the catchment area. The Council received more applications than places for School D and applied the oversubscription criteria. It notified her that her application had been unsuccessful and offered C a place at her second choice school.
17. Mrs B appealed against the decision on the grounds that School D had capacity to take children beyond its published admissions number, C had been attending the pre-school at School D so had already made friends and it would suit their working arrangements better.
18. The Council supplied a statement to the appeal explaining why in its view the school was full, that to admit more pupils would prejudice the provision of efficient education and the admissions arrangements were applied correctly. In the submission it said the PAN for each year group (from September 2021) up to year 3 was 45 and for the higher years was 60 due to demographic issues. The actual number of children on the roll was 45 for each year up to year three, 58 for year 4, 57 for year 5 and 49 for year 6. It said the Council had no plans to increase each year group to 60 as the school site was too small. The net capacity of the school is 315.
19. The appeal panel heard the first stage of the appeal. The Council put forward the case that the school was full. It provided updated figures for each year group: the total number of children on the roll was 344 with 58 in year 5 and 48 in year 6. One of the appellants said during the questioning that the school had written to them and said the school had space for more children. The Council explained its view that the school was full. The Panel decided on a 2:1 majority that the Council had made its case that prejudice would be caused if more children were admitted.
20. The Panel went on to hear the individual cases. Mr B put forward the arguments why C should be admitted to the school. He said that the school had sent them a letter encouraging them to appeal as the school had space and was not at capacity. The Council said it had no knowledge of the letter and it would not have sent it. It explained that it was not the school’s role to make that claim as it was the Council who allocates places. The notes show the Panel gave Mr and Mrs B the opportunity to fully state their case and the Panel asked a number of questions.
21. The Panel decided unanimously that their arguments did not outweigh the prejudice that would be caused if C was admitted to School D.
22. Mrs B was unhappy with the hearing and complained to us. She said the Head of School D had told them to appeal as the school was not full. In response to my enquiries the Council said it had checked the number of children on the roll in each year group before the appeal hearing and the slight change in years 5 and 6 was provided to the Panel.
23. It said the numbers going into years 3 and 4 were 45 and 58 and the total number of children on the roll was 344. It checked again on 12 July 2021 and the numbers were 44, 57 and 341 respectively On 12 August 2021 they had changed slightly to 46, 58 and 337. But the number in reception remained throughout this period at 45.
24. The Council also sent me a statement from the Head and a copy of the letter they sent to unsuccessful applicants. The letter said:

Suffolk County Council has set our PAN at 45 but we do have the capacity to accept a higher number of children and we would not oppose an appeal.

25. The Council confirmed it was unaware of this letter until it was raised by the appellant at the appeal hearing. It said it has taken up the issue with the Head.

Analysis

26. The Council is the admissions authority responsible for allocating places at schools and for administering appeals regarding that process. I have not found fault with the way the Council dealt with Mrs B’s appeal for her child C to attend School D.
27. It has explained the history of admissions at the school the demographic issues which affected the higher years and lead to a higher PAN for these years. However, it was also clear that since 2015 the PAN for the lower years was set at 45 with the net school capacity at 315.
28. The information it provided to the appeal panel was correct at the time it was written, and the Council provided a verbal update on the day of the hearing. Throughout this period the numbers for the reception year group remained constant at 45.
29. I have concluded that the Appeal Panel properly considered the appeal at stage one and had the most up-to-date figures from the school when it made that decision. It was also made aware of the letter from the headteacher and checked the figures with the Council.
30. I have also concluded there was no fault in the way the Panel considered the stage two balancing process. It gave Mr and Mrs B the opportunity to state their case and fully considered the arguments they made including the fact that the Head had sent a letter encouraging them to appeal because the school had space.
31. We cannot investigate the actions of a school and so the letter sent by the Head is outside our jurisdiction. But it was clearly unhelpful and cast uncertainty in Mrs B’s mind that the process was fair and accurate. However, throughout the period concerned the information in respect of the reception year was consistent: places had been allocated up to its PAN of 45. I accept there were variations in the higher years between April and September 2021 but none of these showed that the number of children at the school was below the total PAN of 315.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation into this complaint as I am unable to find fault causing injustice in the actions of the Council towards Mrs B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman