Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a school admission appeal panel’s refusal of an appeal for an infant school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mrs X, complained about the appeal panel’s decision to turn down her appeal for a place for her child (Y) at her preferred infant school (‘the School’). Mrs X said the panel unreasonably accepted the School’s case it had no capacity to admit another child. She also felt the panel had not given enough weight to the difficulties she would have in managing the school run to the more distant school the Council had offered for Y.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We cannot question whether an independent 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)

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mrs X provided with her complaint and documents the Council provided about her appeal. 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 be no more than 30 pupils per teacher, with very limited exceptions. This makes it very hard to win an infant class appeal if admitting the child in question would mean going above 30 in a class.
6. However, the School only admits 28 children in each class, so the infant class size rules did not apply to Y’s appeal. This meant the panel had to follow the law which applies to all other school appeals.
7. In all other cases a panel must first consider if the admission arrangements comply with the law and were properly applied to the child in question. It must then consider if admitting the child would cause prejudice to the school and the education of the other children there. If the panel finds there would be prejudice it must then consider the appellant’s arguments and balance the two cases. If the panel decides the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal. If not, it must reject the appeal.
8. The panel for Y’s appeal decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and correctly applied. It also agreed that accepting an extra child would cause prejudice to the School and the children already going there.
9. Having examined the appeal documents I do not see sign of fault in the way the panel decided these matters. I consider the panel was reasonably entitled to reach those decisions based on the information presented at the hearing.
10. Mr & Mrs X felt they had a compelling argument for the School to accept Y despite any prejudice this would cause. In particular they stressed the advantages of Y going to a school near home and the unreasonable distance and journey to the alternative school the Council had offered.
11. But at the balancing stage it was the panel’s job to weigh up the information received from both sides at the hearing and reach its own view about the opposing appeal cases. I consider the appeal clerk’s notes from the hearing and decision-making, and the panel’s decision letter, are evidence the panel properly followed this balancing process before deciding Mrs X’s appeal.
12. In particular, I consider the appeal records show the panel understood and took suitable account of the issues Mr & Mrs X raised in their case. For instance, panel members clearly gave Mr & Mrs X a reasonable opportunity to present their case, and also explored the issues further with them in their questions on the day.
13. As a result, I do not see sign of fault which would give us grounds to challenge the panel’s decision in Mrs X’s case.

Final decision

14. We will not start an investigation of Mrs X’s complaint that the appeal panel unreasonably refused her appeal about her child’s admission to her preferred primary school. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the panel dealt with the appeal to justify our further involvement in Mrs X’s case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman