Summary: A parent complained about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to turn down her appeal for a place for her child at her preferred primary school. But we will not start an investigation of this matter as we are unlikely to find fault by the panel.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We do not start an investigation if, for example, we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We cannot question whether a school admission appeal 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Miss B provided with her complaint and the appeal documents in her case which the local authority supplied. I also took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

5. Appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. In particular the law says the size of an infant class must not be more than 30 pupils per teacher, with very limited exceptions. The statutory School Admission Appeals Code says that in infant class size appeals, the panel must consider whether:

• admitting another child would breach the infant class size limit in the current year, or in future years as the group moves up through the school;
• the admission arrangements comply with the law, and were properly applied to the case;
• the decision to refuse a place was one which a reasonable authority would have made in the circumstances.

What is ‘reasonable’ is a high test. To uphold an appeal on this ground the panel would need to be sure that the decision to refuse a place was “perverse” or “outrageous”. For that reason, panels in infant class appeals rarely find an admission authority’s decision is unreasonable.

6. Miss B applied for an infant class place for C. The School in question has an admission number of 30. At the appeal hearing the School confirmed it had already offered all 30 places. As a result the panel decided that admitting C would mean breaking the infant class size limit.
7. The panel also decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and correctly applied to C’s case. The School gives the highest priority for admission to children who are baptised Catholics. All 30 places were filled by baptised Catholic children. C’s application was unsuccessful because she was not yet baptised.
8. From the information provided I consider the panel had good reason to decide that the infant class size limit would be exceeded by giving C a place, and that the admission arrangements were correctly applied in C’s case.
9. Miss B felt she had a strong case for C to be given a place. In particular, Miss B pointed to her family’s difficult personal circumstances, their Catholic faith and their close connections with the School. She also referred to the problems she would face in getting her children to and from their different schools if C had to go to another school. In the circumstances it is understandable that Miss B was very disappointed with the appeal decision and felt the panel could not have considered her case properly.
10. But the appeal clerk’s notes from the hearing and the panel’s decision letter are evidence the panel understood and took into account the issues Miss B raised in her case statement and at the hearing. I also note panel members further explored these issues with Miss B in their questions on the day.
11. Ultimately it was the panel’s job to form its own view about the opposing cases, having weighed up the information it read and heard from both sides at the appeal. The panel also had to apply the strict rules the law imposes about the size of infant classes.
12. In effect, the panel could only uphold Miss B’s appeal if it found the School’s decision to refuse her application for C was so unreasonable that it was perverse. But the threshold for finding a decision perverse is extremely high. From the information provided I am not convinced we would find grounds to fault the panel for the way it reached its view that the School’s decision in Miss B’s case was not unreasonable.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint about the appeal panel’s decision not to uphold her appeal about a place for her child at the primary school she wanted. There is not enough evidence of fault by the panel to justify our further involvement in Miss B’s case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman