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 complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her daughter (Y).

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 asked the school to offer her daughter a Year 1 place. Miss X withdrew Y from her previous school because of bullying. Because there were no places in Year 1 the school did not offer Y a place. 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 for Y was governed by infant class size legislation.
8. In her written appeal Miss X explained why she wanted Y to attend the school. She explained about the problems with Y’s previous school and her own health problems. Miss X explained Y’s sibling had a place at the school.
9. The clerk’s notes show the school and Miss X had the chance to present their cases. The panel considered information about the school. The panel decided the school’s admission arrangements were lawful and it had properly applied them. 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 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. The evidence I have seen shows the panel followed the proper process to consider and decide Miss X’s appeal. There is not enough evidence of fault 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