Summary: We will not investigate Mr 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. Mr X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for his daughter. Mr X says the panel failed to properly consider his appeal.

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

What I found

Background

5. Mr X applied for a year 2 place at School Z for his daughter (Y). Mr X and his family were moving to an address close to the school. Because there were no places in year 2, the school refused Mr X’s application. Mr X appealed the decision not to offer Y a place.

The appeals process

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”. Infant class size legislation applied to Miss X’s appeal.
7. 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.
8. 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.

Mr X’s appeal

9. The clerk’s notes show the school and Mr X had the chance to present their cases. In the appeal, Mr X explained why he wanted Y to attend School Z. Mr X explained Y’s younger sibling attended the nursery at School Z. There were two other children in the family and Y’s mother did not drive. There would be logistical issues if Y could not attend School Z.
10. The panel considered information about School Z. The panel decided its admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. 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 the appeal. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.

Assessment

11. I understand Mr X is unhappy the appeal was unsuccessful. But we are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions which were properly taken.
12. 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 the appeal. The panel considered the information it was presented with. The panel reached a decision it was entitled to which the clerk explained in their letter.
13. As explained above, the threshold for an infant class size appeal to succeed is very high.
14. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the panel decided the appeal for the Ombudsman to become involved. An investigation is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr 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