Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a school admissions appeal panel’s decision as it is unlikely we would find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X, says the Schools admissions panel failed to properly consider his appeal for a place.

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 a 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)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X which included the appeal papers.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X applied for a place for his child, Y, to start in an infant class immediately at this School. The family had moved into the area and this is their closest school.
7. The year Mr X applied for in the School is full. The Council refused the application. Mr X appealed to the School’s admissions appeal panel.
8. Mr X’s appeal included that:
• The School offered to them, School Z, is not within a reasonable distance for their family to walk.
• A younger sibling is due to start at this school in September and relies on Y for support.
• They do not like School Z.
• Having both children at this School would help.
9. The appeal panel considered the appeal under the Infant Class Size rules and rejected the appeal.
10. Mr X complained to us because he says:
• The School has failed to properly consider the Equality Act.
• The Appeal Panel should have considered Y to be an ‘excepted pupil’.
• They have failed to reply properly to complaints about this appeal since the decision.

The appeal panel and our role

11. The School Standards and Framework Act limits the size of infant classes (a class in which most of the children will reach the age of 5, 6 or 7 during the school year) to 30 pupils a teacher. The Appeals Code refers to these as infant class size (ICS) appeals. Panels can only uphold these appeals in limited circumstances.  
12. The Appeals Code says in an ICS appeal the panel must consider whether:
• the admission of an additional child or children would breach the infant class size limit; 
• the admission arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements of the School Admissions Code and Part 3 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998; 
• the admission arrangements were correctly and impartially applied in the case in question; and 
• the decision to refuse admission was one which a reasonable admission authority would have made in the circumstances of the case. 
13. What is ‘reasonable’ is a high test. The panel needs to be sure that to refuse a place was “perverse” or “outrageous”. For that reason, panels rarely find an admission authority’s decision to be unreasonable. 
14. In limited circumstances, children can be admitted as exceptions to ICS limit. 
15. The clerk to the panel must write to the appellant, the admission authority and the council with the panel’s decision and reasons. 
16. We cannot question whether a 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.
17. The appeal panel’s notes show they actively considered whether Y should be an excepted pupil. The appeal panel decided they should not. School Z is around a mile’s walking distance from the family’s home. The law says a pupil under eight years old can be expected to walk up to two miles to school.
18. The appeal panel’s notes show they actively considered if the refusal to offer a place was unreasonable. It is clear they considered all Mr X’s arguments.
19. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
20. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.
21. On the information we have seen the appeal panel’s decision letter sets out the appeal panel’s decision and it is unlikely we would find it has not considered the right factors.
22. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about how a body has replied to a complaint, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

23. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman