Summary: Mr B says the Council failed to properly consider his daughter’s school admissions appeal. There is no evidence the appeal panel properly considered the two stages of the appeal process. The Council’s arrangements for a further appeal is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complained the Council failed to deal with his school admissions appeal properly which means his daughter missed out on a place at the same school as her brother. Mr B says this will put strain on the family having to take two children to two different schools.

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. 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

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
• made initial enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
5. Mr 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

What should have happened

6. The School admissions appeal code (the code) says appeal panels must follow the two stage decision making process for this type of appeal.
7. For the first stage the panel must consider:
• Whether the admission arrangements complied with the law; and
• Whether the admission arrangements were correctly and impartially applied in each case.
8. The panel must then decide whether the admission of further children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.
9. The panel must go to the second stage where it finds the admission arrangements complied with the law, were correctly and impartially applied, or where they were not, the child would not have been offered a place anyway and admitting further children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or efficient use of resources.
10. At the second stage the panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant's case for admission of their child to the school. It must take account of the appellant's reasons for expressing a preference for the school, including what the school can offer the child the allocated, or other schools, cannot. Where the panel considers the appellant's case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal.
11. The clerk must ensure an accurate record is taken of the points raised at the hearing including the proceedings, attendance, voting, and reasons for decisions.
12. The clerk must communicate in writing the decision of the appeal panel, and the reasons for it, to the local authority, governing body, and parents concerned.

What happened

13. Mr B’s daughter was due to start secondary school in September 2021. As with all other parents of children the same age the Council advised Mr B to apply for a school place. Mr B completed the application form for a school place but only identified one preference, which was not the school now complained about. Mr B’s daughter did not get a place at that school and he therefore applied for a place for his daughter at the school now complained about, which I will refer to as School A. Mr B’s son already attends School A. As Mr B did not list School A on the original preference form his application was treated as a late application. Late applications are dealt with after all on-time applications have been considered. Mr B’s daughter did not obtain a place at School A because all places had been allocated before the out of time applications were considered. Mr B appealed that decision. The appeal panel did not uphold the appeal.

Analysis

14. I set out in paragraphs 7-9 the process the appeals panel has to go through when considering an admissions appeal. As I also record in paragraph 11, the clerk must ensure an accurate record is taken of the reasons for decisions and the voting. In this case I am not satisfied the clerk’s notes show Mr B’s appeal was properly considered. I say that because the notes from the decision-making part of the meeting do not refer to any consideration panel gave to whether the school had demonstrated the case for prejudice. Indeed, the clerk’s notes from the decision making part of the meeting do not refer to any discussion panel had about whether the school had demonstrated prejudice. In those circumstances I am not satisfied panel properly considered the first stage of the process.
15. The clerk’s notes from the decision-making part of the hearing refer to Mr B’s case in support of his appeal. However, crucially, the decision-making part of the meeting does not show any attempt to balance the prejudice to the school (should the panel have accepted this was proven) with Mr B’s case for a place for his daughter. Nor is there any record of how panel members voted. That is a breach of the code and is fault. I am therefore also not satisfied the second stage of the process was properly considered.
16. I recognise the decision letter following the appeal provided more detail about why panel was satisfied the school had demonstrated prejudice. That letter though still did not explain the basis on which panel had reached its decision that prejudice was demonstrated. In any event, the information provided in that letter does not reflect the clerk’s notes as I would expect it to do. Failure to properly record the decision making process is fault.
17. I also recognise the decision letter following the appeal provided more detail about the information panel took into account when considering whether Mr B had demonstrated a strong enough case to overcome any prejudice to the school of admitting another pupil. Again though, the information included in the decision letter does not reflect the clerk’s notes. In those circumstances Mr B cannot be satisfied his appeal was properly considered. I therefore recommended the Council hold a further appeal for Mr B with a new appeal panel. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.

Back to top

Agreed action

18. Within one month of my decision the Council will arrange a further appeal for Mr B with a new appeal panel.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman