Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and so we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her daughter.

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 cannot question whether an independent school admissions appeals panel’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider if there was fault in the way the decision was reached. If we find fault, which calls into question the panel’s decision, we may ask for a new appeal hearing. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the school.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X’s daughter (Y) was due to start Reception in September 2021. Miss X applied for a place at her preferred school (School Z). Miss X’s application was late and was therefore considered after applications made on time. Because there were more applications than places available, the Council used the school’s oversubscription criterion to decide which children it would offer places. School Z did not offer Y a place and Miss X appealed the decision.
6. Independent school admission appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. The law says the size of an infant class must not be more than 30 pupils per teacher. There are only limited circumstances in which more than 30 children can be admitted. There are special rules governing appeals for reception and years 1 and 2, where admitting another child would mean there would be more than 30 pupils per teacher. Appeals under these rules are known as “infant class size appeals”. The rules say the panel must consider whether:
• admitting another child would breach the class size limit;
• the admission arrangements comply with the law;
• the admission arrangements were properly applied to the case;
• the decision to refuse a place was one which a reasonable authority would have made in the circumstances.
7. What is ‘unreasonable’ is a high test, and for it to be met, the panel would need to be sure the decision to refuse a place was “perverse” or “outrageous”. For that reason, panels rarely find an admission authority’s decision to be unreasonable. Miss X’s appeal was governed by infant class size legislation.
8. In her written appeal Miss X explained why she wanted Y to attend School Z. She explained why her application was late and that Y’s childminder only covered School Z. Miss X explained the difficulties she would face if School Z did not offer Y a place.
9. The clerk’s notes show the panel considered information about School Z and Miss X’s written appeal. Miss X attended the appeal via video conference. The panel decided the school’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. The panel considered Miss X’s reasons for wanting a place. The panel decided it was not an unreasonable decision to refuse admission. The panel decided that none of the grounds for allowing an infant class size appeal had been met. This is a decision the panel was entitled to reach. The clerk’s notes show the key issues the panel considered. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.
10. I understand Miss X is unhappy her appeal was unsuccessful. But each panel needs to reach a decision based on the information before it. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the panel decided Miss X’s appeal for the Ombudsman to become involved. An investigation is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and so we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman