Summary: We 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.

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 Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

The appeals process

5. 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”.
6. 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.

What happened

8. In November 2021, Miss X applied for a reception place for her daughter (Y). The application was for a place starting in September 2022. Miss X’s preferred school was School Z.
9. In April 2022, the Council wrote to Miss X. It had not offered Y a place at School Z. Miss X contacted the Council about this and it said she had not included School Z as one of her preferences. Miss X disputed this and explained she had not received a confirmation email when she submitted her application. Miss X said something had clearly gone wrong with the Council’s systems.
10. The Council added School Z to Miss X’s application. But because School Z had offered all its reception places the Council could not offer Y a place. Miss X appealed the decision.
11. Miss X’s original appeal was held in June 2022. During the hearing Miss X’s application was discussed. An email sent by the Council to Miss X in November 2021 was considered important evidence. The hearing was abandoned as the Council could not respond to certain points about Miss X’s application. The hearing was rescheduled for July 2022. It is that second appeal we will focus on as the panel’s decision prompted Miss X's complaint. Infant class size legislation applied to Miss X’s appeal.

Miss X’s second appeal

12. The clerk’s notes show the Council and Miss X had the chance to present their cases. An email automatically sent from the Council to Miss X in November 2021 was part of the evidence presented. This showed three preferences. School Z was not one of the preferences.
13. In her appeal, Miss X explained how she had applied as soon as the application process opened. She had applied before for an elder child and was sure she had listed School Z as her first preference. The Presenting Officer said there had been no other issues with preferences not being recorded. Miss X explained the problems it would cause if Y did not attend School Z. The panel asked the Council and Miss X questions.
14. The panel considered information about School Z. The panel decided its admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. It took into account the email the Council sent to Miss X in November 2021. This showed her original application did not include School Z. The panel decided admitting a further child would breach the infant class size limit. The panel decided it was not an unreasonable decision to refuse admission. None of the grounds for allowing an infant class size appeal had been met and so the panel refused Miss X’s appeal. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.

Assessment

15. I understand Miss X is unhappy her appeal was unsuccessful. But we are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions which were properly taken. We cannot intervene to substitute an alternative view if there was no fault in the way a decision was reached.
16. 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. The panel considered the information before it and reached a decision it was entitled to.
17. 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

18. We 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