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. The Council agreed to arrange a rehearing of one of Mr X’s appeals with a new appeal panel.

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. 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)
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. The School admissions appeal code (the code) says appeal panels must follow the two stage decision making process for an appeal under ordinary prejudice rules.
6. 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.
7. The panel must then decide whether the admission of further children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. 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 considered the comments of both parties on it.

Back to top

What I found

Background

13. 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.
14. This complaint investigation concerns Child B. 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.
15. 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

16. I cannot conclude Mr X’s appeals were heard fairly on the available information.
17. 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.
18. I question the school’s statement that it no longer keeps separate minutes of hearings.
19. 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.
20. 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.

Back to top

Agreed action

21. Where we find fault by a body in jurisdiction we must go on to consider the injustice caused and a possible remedy for the injustice. Here, there is an uncertainty about the outcome of the appeal given the identified procedural fault.
22. I recommended the Council arrange a new appeal for Mr X with a new appeal panel. This should be done within one month of the final date of my decision on this complaint. The new appeal is for Child B. The Council agreed to implement the recommendation.

Back to top

Final decision

23. There was fault with the handling of the appeal process. The complaint is now closed because the Council agreed to remedy the fault with a fresh appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman