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 panel’s decision.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her son.

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. Miss X applied for a place in reception at St Peter’s (‘the School’) for her son (Y). Because the School was oversubscribed, it used its oversubscription criteria to decide which children it would offer places. The School offered its 30 places to children with a higher oversubscription criterion than Y. Miss 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.

Miss X’s appeal

9. In her written appeal Miss X referred to:
• Y’s sibling already attending the School.
• The logistical issues it would cause if Y could not attend the School. Miss X would have to leave her job and would potentially lose her home.
• Delays in Y being baptised because of COVID-19. This had now happened.
• Y suffering from anxiety because he had not been offered a place.
10. The clerk’s notes show the School had the chance to present their case. Miss X and the panel could ask questions. Miss X presented her case and explained why she wanted Y to attend the School. Miss X expanded on the points in her written appeal. The panel asked questions.
11. In its deliberations the panel considered information about the School. 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 Miss X’s appeal. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.

Assessment

12. 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. As previously explained, the threshold for an infant class size appeal to succeed is very high.
13. In correspondence to the Ombudsman Miss X mentioned several issues. I have responded to these below:
• The Headteacher of the School giving her incorrect information about Y’s position on the waiting list. Appeal panels are not allowed to take into account a child’s position on a waiting list.
• The Council providing incorrect information about the impact of Y not being baptised. Our role is to look at how the panel considered the appeal. This specific point was not discussed in the hearing.
• The Headteacher wrongly stating during the appeal Y would not have been offered a place if they had been baptised. This is not recorded in the clerk’s notes. But Y was not baptised at the time of Miss X’s application. The panel noted this.
• The School encouraging Miss X to have Y baptised before the end of April. This specific issue was not raised in the appeal. But our role is to look at how the panel considered the appeal – not the actions of the School or other parties.
• Y’s sibling at the School not being taken into account. This was reflected in the oversubscription criterion assigned to Y.
14. Turning to the panel’s actions, the evidence I have seen shows the panel followed the proper process to consider and decide Miss X’s appeal. The panel asked questions and explored the issues at the heart of the appeal.
15. Each panel needs to reach a decision based on the information before it. The panel considered all the information it was presented with and reached a decision it was entitled to. The clerk’s decision letter is sufficiently detailed to explain the panel’s decision.
16. Based on the information available there is not enough evidence of fault in how the panel considered and decided Miss X’s appeal for the Ombudsman to become involved. An investigation is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman