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 panel’s decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for his daughter. Mr X says the Chair of the appeal panel had a poor Internet connection and he is unhappy with the wording of the clerk’s decision letter. Mr X would also like changes to the school admissions process.

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

Background

5. Mr X applied for a place in reception at his preferred school (School Z) for his daughter (Y). Because the school was oversubscribed, the Council used its oversubscription criteria to decide which children to offer places. The Council did not offer Y a place and Mr X appealed the decision.

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 Mr 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 Council and Mr X had the chance to present their cases. Mr X and the panel could ask questions. In his appeal, Mr X explained why he wanted Y to attend School Z. Mr X said it was an excellent school which was close to the family’s home. Several other children who lived close by would also be attending. Mr X raised concerns about the alternative school at which the Council had offered a place.
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 Mr X’s appeal. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.

Assessment

11. I understand Mr X is unhappy his 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 Mr X’s appeal. The clerk’s notes mention issues with the Chair’s Internet connection. But there is no evidence it stopped the Chair playing a proper part in the hearing. Mr X is unhappy with the clerk’s letter which said he could decline the place the Council had offered and explore other options. That is an option open to Mr X. The evidence shows the panel considered the information presented and reached a decision it was entitled to take. We also have no powers to change the school admissions process.
13. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the panel decided Mr X’s appeal for the Ombudsman to become involved. An investigation is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman