Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a school admissions appeal panel’s decision as it is unlikely we could find fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, says the Council’s schools admissions team failed to communicate with him and denied him the chance to put forward 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 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms Z, the mother of Mr X’s child, Y, applied for a place for Y to start in the reception class in September 2023 at School W. Mr X says he knew she had applied but his details were not on the application form as it only allows for one parent’s details.
7. Mr X says Ms Z told him the application was unsuccessful and that she was going to appeal the decision. He says he gave her his written submission. He said he intended to attend the appeal. He says he was told with little notice by Ms Z the appeal date had changed. He could not attend the new date.
8. Mr X says the Council should have informed him. He says the appeal panel failed to take into account his comments in its decision. He says Y has special needs which mean the School W is the right school for Y. He says Y should have had extra priority because of this.
9. The appeal panel rejected the appeal and considered the appeal under the Infant Class Size rules.

The appeal panel and our role

10. The School Standards and Framework Act limits the size of infant classes (a class in which most of the children will reach the age of 5, 6 or 7 during the school year) to 30 pupils a teacher. The Appeals Code refers to these as infant class size (ICS) appeals. Panels can only uphold these appeals in limited circumstances.  
11. Where an appeal only involves one child, the panel examines the decision to refuse admission. The Appeals Code says in an ICS appeal the panel must consider whether:
• the admission of an additional child or children would breach the infant class size limit; 
• the admission arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements of the School Admissions Code and Part 3 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998; 
• the admission arrangements were correctly and impartially applied in the case in question; and 
• the decision to refuse admission was one which a reasonable admission authority would have made in the circumstances of the case. 
12. 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. 
13. In limited circumstances, children can be admitted as exceptions to ICS limit. These exceptions include children of compulsory school-age who move into the area outside the normal admissions round for whom there is no other available school within reasonable distance.  
14. ICS appeals also applies where admitting a further child would lead to a breach of the infant class size limit in future years.
15. The clerk to the panel must write to the appellant, the admission authority and the council with the panel’s decision and reasons. 
16. 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.
17. The Council’s admission criteria does not give preference to those pupils with additional needs if they do not have an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). Y does not. The admission criteria says those applicants with special needs without an EHC Plan are considered as normal applicants. This means the Council did not fault in not giving Y extra priority because of their additional needs. It is unlikely we would therefore say the Appeal Panel was at fault.
18. The Council’s admissions process is clear that only one parent’s details are submitted on the application form and appeal. That parent should have the consent of all other people with parental responsibility. It is that applicant’s responsibility, not the Council, to tell other parents of the appeal arrangements. We are unlikely to find it is the Council’s fault that Mr X had short notice about the appeal date changing or if his written comments did not make their way to the appeal panel.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman