Summary: A parent complained about the way the school admission appeal panel dealt with his appeal for a place for his daughter at his preferred primary school. But we do not have grounds to investigate the complaint because there is not enough sign of fault by the panel.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr B, complained that the school admission appeal panel unreasonably rejected his appeal for a place for his daughter at his preferred primary school (‘the School’). In particular Mr B was unhappy the panel went ahead with the appeal hearing in his absence after he failed to join the meeting on time due to illness. In the circumstances Mr B felt the panel did not consider his appeal case properly. In addition Mr B said the appeal clerk was rude to him and the panel lied about trying to contact him before the hearing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if, for example, we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We cannot question whether an admission appeal panel’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr B provided with his complaint. I also gave Mr B a chance to comment on a draft of this decision before I reached a final view in his case. In addition I took account of documents about Mr B’s appeal which were provided by the Council.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council arranged to hear Mr B’s appeal remotely using Zoom. The hearing was due to start at 10.40 am but Mr B failed to join at that time. The Chair of the panel said she tried twice to phone Mr B but there was no reply. At 10.50 am the panel decided to go ahead with the hearing based on Mr B’s written representations, and the proceedings finished at 11.10 am. The appeal clerk said Mr B attempted to join the meeting at 11.24 am.
6. But I do not see there is sign of fault by the panel in the way it dealt with this matter.
7. The statutory School Admission Appeals Code says: “Where an appellant fails, or is unable, to attend and it is impractical to offer an alternative date the appeal may go ahead and be decided on the written information submitted.” In addition, the Council’s published guidance for parents about appeals says hearings will go ahead in the appellant’s absence based on the written information if they do not arrive within 10 minutes of the appointment time. The Council also made a similar point in a letter it sent Mr B before the hearing.
8. In the circumstances I consider the panel was reasonably entitled to carry on with the hearing having had no contact from Mr B by 10.50 am on the day.
9. Mr B said the panel lied in claiming it had tried to phone him before starting the hearing. But the appeal clerk said that in a conversation with Mr B after the hearing he said he had received missed calls from an unknown number.
10. Therefore there are conflicting accounts about this matter. But in the absence of any objective records of the calls and the conversation in question, I do not see that we can verify exactly what happened. As a result I am not convinced we are likely to find enough evidence to justify faulting the Council in this respect.
11. Mr B was also upset he was not allowed to put his case to the panel when he finally joined the meeting. But by that stage it was over 40 minutes since Mr B’s appointment time and the panel had already heard the case and made its decision. I do not see we could find fault with the panel for not necessarily re-opening the appeal proceedings in those circumstances.
12. Mr B said the appeal clerk was rude to him in the conversation that took place following the hearing. But there are also differing accounts of what was said at that point and apparently no record of the exchange. Therefore I also consider we are unlikely to uncover sufficient evidence to warrant finding against the panel regarding this issue.
13. Appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal for a primary school place. In particular, in cases involving admission to Years 3 and above, the panel must consider whether:

• the admission arrangements comply with the law;
• the admission arrangements were properly applied to the child in question.

It must then consider whether admitting another child would prejudice the education of others. If the panel finds there would be prejudice it must then consider the appellant’s arguments. If the panel decides the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal.

14. The panel for Mr B’s appeal decided that the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and were correctly applied in C’s case. The panel also accepted that taking an extra child would cause prejudice to the School and the children already going there. In this case C’s year group of 60 was already full.
15. But from the evidence provided I do not see sign of fault in the way the panel decided these issues in Mr B’s case. I consider the panel was reasonably entitled to reach the views it did based on the information presented to it at the appeal.
16. Mr B felt he had a strong case for C to be given a place at the School. This was mainly because the School is within close walking distance of the family home, and his medical condition which meant he could not drive C to the school she has been offered, which is much further away.
17. But at the end of the day it was the panel’s job to reach its own view having weighed up the information it received from both sides at the appeal. I consider that the clerk’s notes, and the panel’s decision letter, are evidence the panel followed this balancing process properly and came to a reasoned judgement based on the information presented to it.
18. In the circumstances I am not convinced there is sign of fault in the panel’s decision-making, or in any other part of the appeal process, which would give us grounds to question its decision in Mr B’s case. Therefore I have concluded that we would not be justified in investigating Mr B’s complaint.

Final decision

19. We do not have grounds to investigate Mr B’s complaint regarding the way the appeal panel dealt with his appeal about the refusal of a place at the School for his daughter. This is because there is not enough sign of fault by the panel.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman