Summary: Mr X says the admissions appeal panel did not take account of his medical conditions and did not treat him fairly. There was inadequate detail in the clerk’s notes to conclude Mr X’s appeals were conducted properly. However, the identified fault did not cause Mr X significant injustice to warrant further pursuit of this complaint by, or a remedy from, the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. I refer to the complainant here as Mr X. Mr X complains about the appeal panel failing to properly consider his appeals against the school’s decision to refuse his children places at the school. I refer to his children here as Child A and Child B.
2. Mr X emphasises his family is under great pressure and stress because they are finding it difficult to take the children to their present school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

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)

School Admissions Appeal Code (February 2012)

5. Section 2.26 says 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.
6. Section 2.27 says these notes and records of proceedings must be kept securely by the admission authority for a minimum of two years.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered all the information from Mr X and the Council. I discussed matters with Mr X by telephone. I sent a draft decision statement to Mr X and the Council and invited the comments of both parties on it.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. Mr X made in year applications for places for two of his children at the school. The school refused his applications and Mr X appealed. Mr X now complains about the appeal panel’s decisions to turn down his appeals.
9. This complaint investigation concerns Child A. Child A’s appeal was heard under the infant class size prejudice rules. Child B’s appeal was heard under ordinary prejudice rules. The school heard both appeals at the same time.
10. The school did not keep separate minutes of hearings. So, only the clerk’s notes give an account of what took place. I have read the clerk’s notes and they are rudimentary. The appeal panel’s decision reasons were only shown in the decision letters.

Finding

11. I cannot conclude Mr X’s appeals were heard fairly on the available information.
12. The main issue is the adequacy of the clerk’s notes. The notes give a sketchy account of what took place. This makes it difficult to tell if the correct order of proceedings was followed and if Mr X was given a reasonable opportunity to make his case and question the presenting officer. I do not find the notes in this case comply with section 2.26 of the Appeals Code.
13. I question the school’s statement that it no longer keeps separate minutes of hearings.
14. I also find the decision to hear the two appeals together was questionable when considering infant class size prejudice applied in one case and ordinary prejudice in the other. This may have been a convenient way of dealing with matters given Mr X’s case was the same for both appeals. However, it is not then clear from the clerk’s notes if the different processes were explained to Mr X or if he consented to the arrangement.
15. Furthermore, we would need to be sure the information about Mr X’s medical conditions were properly considered by the panel. But the decision letters only refer to what Mr X said at the hearing and do not refer to whether the panel considered the medical letters he submitted in advance of the hearing.

Injustice

16. Where we find fault by a body in jurisdiction we must go on to consider the injustice and a possible remedy for the identified fault.
17. We usually recommend a fresh consideration of a complainant’s concerns by a new appeal panel where we find procedural fault in admissions appeals. I have considered whether a new appeal should be offered to Mr X in the case of Child A.
18. However, I do not find the circumstances warrant a recommendation of a fresh appeal. Mr X’s appeal was heard under the infant class size rules. Infant classes must not contain more than 30 pupils with a single schoolteacher. Mr X’s child was refused a place on the basis they had already filled 30 places. The appeal panel could have allowed an appeal on one of the following grounds:
• The Year one class was not in fact full;
• The admission arrangements did not comply with admissions law or were not correctly and impartially applied, and his child would have been offered a place if the arrangements had complied or had been correctly and impartially applied; or
• The decision not to admit a child was not one which a reasonable admissions authority would make in the circumstances of the case.
19. Mr X’s appeal was on medical grounds and that his rights under the Equality Act entitled him to have his children at the school. This could plausibly be an appeal under the third ground listed above which is reasonableness. But I cannot now conclude that the admissions authority’s decision was not one which a reasonable admissions authority would have made in the circumstances of the case. Once a class is full, it is not the case that the school would not have refused his child a place.
20. So, while I find fault procedural fault in terms of the handling of Mr X’s appeal, I do not find Mr X suffered significant injustice to warrant a recommendation of a fresh appeal. It is unlikely Mr X’s appeal would have succeeded but for the identified fault in this case. I will not pursue this complaint any further, therefore.

Back to top

Final decision

21. There was procedural fault in the handling of Mr X’s appeal. However, this complaint was closed because Mr X did not suffer significant injustice in consequence of the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman