Summary: A parent complained that the way the Council administers school waiting lists breaches the School Admissions Code and that, as a result, her child was unfairly denied a school place. But we will not investigate this complaint as the parent had a right of appeal about the refusal of a school place and there is no sign of fault in the appeal process in her case. In addition, the School Adjudicator is best placed to consider if the Council’s admission arrangements for the school comply with statutory requirements.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mrs B, complained that the Council’s process for administering school waiting lists does not comply with paragraph 2.15 of the statutory School Admissions Code (‘the Code’) which says: “Priority must not be given to children based on the date their application was received, or their name was added to the list.” Mrs B also complained her child (‘C’) unfairly missed out on a place from the waiting list for her preferred primary school (‘School X’) as a result of this failure to comply with the Code.

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, or there is another body better placed to consider the complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal, such as a school admission appeal panel. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. We cannot question whether a school admission appeal 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mrs B provided with her complaint. I also gave Mrs B a chance to comment on a draft of this decision before I reached a final view in her case. In addition, I took account of information from the Council about Mrs B’s application and appeal.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council’s published admission scheme for this year said applications received after the statutory closing date of 15 January 2022 would only be considered after all on time applications.
7. The Council held a continuing interest ‘run’ in May. This was to allow any unfilled places to be offered to on-time applicants who were not allocated one of their higher preference schools on national offer day (19 April) and to late applicants who applied by 4 March. A second continuing interest run was carried out in June when other late applications received before 23 May were also considered for any spare places.
8. On 19 April the Council offered C a Reception class place at Mrs B’s original first preference primary school. However by then Mrs B wanted to change her preference and apply to School X because C’s sibling had recently been offered a place there. She enquired to the Council about this matter on the same day.
9. Mrs B then found she could not register for the first continuing interest run and her new application would not be considered until the second run in June. But at that stage the Council refused her application as no places were available at School X at that time and it placed C on the waiting list. Mrs B subsequently appealed to an independent admission appeal panel about the refusal decision. However the panel turned down her appeal.
10. But the law says we cannot investigate a complaint where the person affected has appealed to a statutory tribunal (the admission appeal panel in this case) about the issue in question. Therefore, I do not see that we can pursue Mrs B’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with her application for School X.
11. We can consider if there is sign of fault in the appeal panel’s handling of Mrs B’s appeal. However, having considered the panel’s decision letter, I do not see any immediate indication of fault on its part.
12. Appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal for an infant class place. In infant class size appeals, the rules say the panel must consider whether:

• admitting another child would breach the statutory infant class size limit of 30 children;
• the admission arrangements comply with the law, and were properly applied to the case;
• the decision to refuse a place was one which a reasonable authority would have made in the circumstances.

13. If a panel finds that the admission arrangements are unlawful or were wrongly applied, and the child missed out on a place as a result, it must uphold the appeal.
14. In Mrs B’s case the panel’s decision letter shows that in reaching its decision the panel considered if the Council’s arrangements were lawful and properly applied to C. In particular the panel considered Mrs B’s contention that paragraph 2.15 of the Code had been breached. But it concluded the arrangements were lawful and correctly applied, and were compliant with the Code.
15. The panel evidently considered this issue in detail, weighing up the information received from both parties at the appeal before coming to a reasoned decision. So as we may not question the merits of an appeal panel’s finding if there is no fault in the decision-making process, I do not see that there is evidence for us to challenge the panel’s decision regarding this matter in Mrs B’s case.
16. Mrs B also wants us to confirm whether or not the Council is in breach of the Code. But we do not have a power to make rulings on the lawfulness of admission arrangements. S I do not see we can provide an effective outcome for her in this respect.
17. In addition, the Office of the Schools Adjudicator has been set up to deal with objections to school admission arrangements on the basis they do not comply with the Code or other legislation. If necessary, the Adjudicator can make binding decisions for admission authorities to revise their arrangements. In the circumstances I consider the School’s Adjudicator is best placed to deal with this part of Mrs B’s complaint.

Final decision

18. We do not have grounds to start an investigation of Mrs B’s complaint that the Council’s process for operating school waiting lists does not comply with the School Admissions Code, and her child was wrongly denied a school place as a result. This is because Mrs B had a right of appeal about the refusal of the school place, and there is no sign of fault in the appeal panel’s decision-making regarding this matter. In addition, the Schools Adjudicator is best placed to rule on the lawfulness of the Council’s admission arrangements.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman