Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel failed to provide her child with a place at School Y. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused them to lose out on a school place.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, says the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel did not properly consider her appeal for a place for her child, D, at School 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 a 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)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. This complaint involves events that occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the Council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Principles of Good Administrative Practice during Covid”.
5. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background information

8. Mrs X applied on time for a place for her child, D, to start in September 2022 in reception at School Y. An elder sibling attends there. It is not their nearest school. It is over 3 miles from their home.
9. All the 30 places for September 2022 in reception were allocated under the published admission criteria. The last place went to an applicant who was closer to the school than Mrs X’s. D was offered a place at their nearest school around 0.2 miles from their home.
10. Mrs X appealed the decision not to award a place at the School for D, to an Independent Appeal Panel. It considered the case in July 2022 by video conference. Mrs X told the Appeal Panel that:
• She wanted both her children at the same school.
• D had become familiar with School Y due to their sibling attending there and nursery attendance.
• She had a disability which meant getting her children to the nearest school would be dangerous and difficult. She says she has a younger third child to also push in a pushchair and believes the route along narrow village footpaths to be unsafe.
• Her disability meant the extra effort of getting two children to two different schools would affect her health.
11. The Council told the Appeal Panel there is a car park opposite the school which D had been allocated a place, with a crossing point from the car park to the school. It considered the home to school working route safe.
12. The Appeal Panel refused Mrs X’s appeal and she complained to us. She says the extra stress of not getting the place she wants is affecting her health. She says the admissions criteria should allow and given preference for parents’ disabilities.

Analysis

The appeals panel’s and Ombudsman’s role

13. Independent 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. These are called excepted pupils.
14. There are special rules governing appeals for Reception and Years 1 and 2. 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.
15. What is ‘reasonable’ is a high test. The panel needs to be sure that to refuse a place was “perverse” or “outrageous”. For that reason, panels rarely find an admission authority’s decision to be unreasonable in light of the admission arrangements.
16. If the Panel decides the reasons for granting a place on appeal have been met, then that extra child becomes an ‘excepted’ child for the infant class size rules. It means the school can go over 30 and not breach the law.
17. We cannot question the decision if it has been properly taken. If the Panel has been properly informed, and used the correct procedure, then it is entitled to come to its own judgment about the evidence it hears.

The appeal in this complaint

18. The Appeal Panel decided that admitting another child would breach the infant class limit for the school year 2022/23. There will be 30 pupils per teacher. A school can only admit more than 30 pupils per teacher if the extra pupils are classified as excepted pupils. D does not meet the criteria as an excepted pupil.
19. The Appeal Panel considered the admission arrangements and decided they complied with the law. There is a process for disputing admission criteria through the Schools Adjudicator. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to have used that process if she believed the criteria was wrong.
20. The Appeal Panel was also satisfied that the admission arrangements had been properly applied in this case.
21. The Appeal Panel’s decision letter records the reasons Mrs X presented at the Appeal Panel for wanting a place. It is clear the Appeal Panel considered Mrs X’s reasons for wanting a place and decided the decision to refuse a place was one which a reasonable authority would have made in the circumstances and in light of the admission arrangements.
22. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Appeal Panel’s decision. The information I have seen supports the Appeal Panel’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

23. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman