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 to warrant further investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains about an unsuccessful appeal for a place for her daughter Y at her preferred school, School Z. She says she already has a child who attends the school and cannot be at two schools at the same time to drop off and pick up her children.

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 Miss X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Background

5. Independent appeal panels must follow the School Admissions Appeals Code 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.
6. When a school receives more applications than it has places (the ‘published admissions number’, or PAN), the applications will be ranked according to its over-subscription criteria. Each application will be placed into the highest appropriate criterion, and places are then allocated in descending order of rank.
7. If a child is not allocated a place in their preferred school they may appeal. 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.
8. An appeal panel can only overturn an admissions authority’s decision to refuse a place if they find one or more of these points do not apply and that had the decision been taken properly, the child would have been allocated a place at the school.
9. 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.
10. The clerk must ensure an accurate record is taken of the points raised at the hearing, including the proceedings, attendance, voting, and reasons for decisions.

Back to top

My assessment

11. Our role is to check appeals have been carried out properly. We do not provide a further right of appeal or decide whether a child should be given a place at a school and we cannot question the merits of decisions 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.
12. The evidence available in this case shows Miss X was invited to the appeal hearing but she did not attend. The Council as the admissions authority provided Miss X with a copy of the school’s case explaining the reasons it did not admit Z and the panel considered this information alongside Miss X’s reasons for appealing. However the panel was satisfied that admitting Z to the school would breach the infant class size limit, that the admissions arrangements complied with the law and were correctly applied and that the decision to refuse admission was a reasonable one in the circumstances. It therefore had no choice but to refuse Miss X’s appeal.
13. I appreciate Miss X is unhappy with the appeal panel’s decision but I have not seen enough evidence of fault to question it. While Miss X says she has another child at the school did not provide this information with her application and it was therefore considered under the ‘distance’ oversubscription criterion. Miss X lives further away from the school than the last successful applicant and Z was therefore correctly refused a place at the school. This was not the result of any error by the Council and the panel was entitled to decide the decision to refuse the place was not unreasonable.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman