Summary: Mr D complained how the independent appeal panel dealt with his appeals for places for his children at their preferred secondary school. We find some fault in how the panel considered Mr D’s appeals. This means he cannot be satisfied the appeals process was carried out fairly. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Mr D complained how the independent appeal panel dealt with his appeals for places for his children at their preferred secondary school. He says the panel failed to evidence its decision making and explain why his appeals were rejected. He also says panel members inappropriately questioned his wife on her work. Mr D says the matter has caused frustration and upset.

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 must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mr D and the Council.
5. Mr D and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

6. Statutory guidance about school admissions and appeals can be found in The School Admissions Code and School Admission Appeals Code. Both are published by the Department for Education.
7. Parents/carers have the right to appeal an admission authority’s decision not to offer their child a school place.
8. Appeals must be held in private and conducted in the presence of all panel members and parties. The admission authority must provide a presenting officer at the hearing to present the decision not to admit the child and to answer questions about the school’s case.
9. Panels must follow a two-stage decision making process. 
10. Stage 1: the panel examines the decision to refuse admission. The panel must consider whether: 

• The admissions arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements set out in the School Admissions Code; 
• The admission arrangements were applied correctly; and if 
• The admission of additional children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.  

11. If a panel decides that admitting further children would “prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources” they move to the second stage two of the process.
12. Stage 2: balancing the arguments. The panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for the child to be admitted.
13. The clerk must take an accurate record of the hearing, including the proceedings, attendance, voting and reasons for decisions.
14. The appeal panel must write to the appellant, the admission authority and the council with its decision and the reasons for it. The decision letter must be easy to understand and must contain a summary of relevant factors raised by parties and considered by the panel. It must also provide clear reasons for the panel’s decision.

What happened

15. Mr D made late applications in June 2023 for his twin children to attend their preferred secondary school (School Y) in year 7. The Council reviewed Mr D’s applications and allocated his children places at another school (School Z). The Council explained it was the nearest school with available places.
16. Mr D appealed. He said his children had made friends in the area and they were looking forward to moving to School Y with them. He also said his eldest child had been offered a place at School Y and therefore all his children could support each other at the same school. He said School Z is further than School Y and it would mean several car journeys in the morning and evening. He also said his children visit relatives and attend clubs near to School Y.
17. An independent appeal panel considered Mr D’s appeals. School Y said it was oversubscribed, the year group was full, and the published admission number (PAN) had been exceeded. The PAN is the number of pupils in each year group the admission authority has agreed it will admit. School Y said the admission of further pupils would prejudice the efficient education of existing pupils. The panel noted the PAN had been reached.
18. Mr D then presented his case. He explained why he made late applications and why it was important for all his children to attend the same school. A panel member asked about the impact on Mr D’s wife (Mrs D) time if her children attended different schools. Mrs D said the morning drop offs could take one hour. She also explained it was not safe for her children to walk to the bus stop because of where they live.
19. The panel considered Mr D’s case. Members decided he had not presented sufficient evidence to override prejudice to School Y.
20. The clerk sent decision letters to Mr D after the hearing. The letters state the panel was satisfied further admission of pupils to School Y would prejudice the provision of efficient education and efficient use of resources. The clerk also said the panel considered Mr D’s arguments, but concluded they were not sufficient to override prejudice to School Y.

Back to top

Analysis

21. The clerk’s stage one notes do not show how the panel decided the admission arrangements were lawful, properly applied and the reasons why it was satisfied. This is fault. The notes only state PAN was reached. This is not enough detail to evidence the panel’s decision making. The decision letters also do not explain whether the panel considered the admissions arrangements were lawful.
22. The clerk’s stage two notes show some consideration of the points Mr D raised. However, this is not reflected in the decision letters. The decision letters list Mr D’s key arguments, but there is no explanation of why they were not sufficient to override prejudice to School Y.
23. Mr D says panel members inappropriately questioned Mrs D on her work, and implied her job is to take their children to and from school. During the appeals, Mr D explained the difficulties of managing the travel arrangements to different schools and the impact on Mrs D’s time. The panel wanted further information from Mrs D on her work commitments. The exploration of this point was a key consideration of the case, and I find no fault in the panel asking this question.
24. The faults identified call into question the decisions reached. This has caused Mr D an injustice as he cannot be certain his appeals were properly considered.

Back to top

Agreed action

25. By 18 December 2023 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mr D for the uncertainty caused by how it considered his appeals.
• Arrange for Mr D’s appeals to be re-heard with a new panel and clerk. The appeals should be considered based on the admission figures at the time Mr D made his first appeals. This is to ensure Mr D is put back in the position he would have been in had his appeals been properly considered.

26. By 18 January 2024 the Council has agreed to:

• Issue written reminders to clerks to ensure they record the reasons for the panel’s decision at both stages of the school admissions appeals process and they provide detailed explanations to parents/guardians in the decision letters.

27. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

28. There was fault by the Council, which has caused Mr D an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman