Summary: We will not investigate this complaint from a parent about the handling of his school admission appeal. This is because there is no sign of fault in the appeal processes which affected the result.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (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 Mr B provided with his complaint and the appeal documents in his case which the local authority supplied. I also took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

5. Independent school admission 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.
6. 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 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.

7. Mr B applied for a place for C in an infant class. The School’s admission number for C’s year group is 30 taught in one class. At the appeal hearing the School confirmed it had already accepted 30 children. The panel went on to decide that C’s admission would exceed the infant class size limit in her year group.
8. The panel also found the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and correctly applied in C’s case. C’s application came under the sixth criterion of the School’s Admissions Policy. But all the available places had gone to children ranked under the first four priority criteria.
9. I consider the panel had good reason to decide that giving C a place would exceed the infant class size limit, and the admission arrangements were correctly applied in C’s case, based on the information provided to it.
10. Mr B felt the School had lied, and the panel’s decision in his case was unfair, because the School later gave another child a place taking the class size to 31.
11. But the statutory School Admissions Code allows for more than 30 in an infant class in certain exceptional circumstances. I enquired to the local authority about this issue and I am satisfied the child in question was in one of the categories of excepted children set out in the Code.
12. Mr B felt he had a strong case for C to have a place at the School. For example, he pointed to his family’s close connections with the area, the School and the local church, and the unsuitability of the alternative school offered by local authority.
13. I consider the appeal clerk’s notes and the panel’s decision letter are evidence that panel members understood and took account of the points Mr B put forward in his appeal documents and at the hearing. But ultimately the panel had 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.
14. In effect the panel could only uphold Mr B’s appeal if it found the School’s decision to refuse C a place was so unreasonable that it was perverse. But the threshold for finding a decision perverse is extremely high. From the information provided I do not see we could justify finding fault with the panel for the way it reached its view that the decision on C’s application did not meet this high threshold.
15. Mr B said the local authority lost his appeal papers at first and this put his appeal back by a month. But I am not convinced we could say this would have caused an injustice to warrant us starting an investigation. I can see that any loss of documents and delay would have caused Mr B some inconvenience and frustration. However I do not see reason to suggest the result of his appeal would have been any different had it happened earlier.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the way the appeal panel dealt with his appeal for a place for his child at the primary school he wanted. There is not enough evidence that fault in the appeal arrangements and decision making caused Mr B an injustice to justify our further involvement in his case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman