Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 003 408)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We found fault on Miss P’s complaint about the appeal panel failing to properly consider her appeal against the admission authority’s decision to refuse her daughter Q a place at her preferred school. This caused the family a great deal of distress. The panel failed to properly consider her submissions when reaching its decision. It failed to properly communicate its decision to her. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.
The complaint
- Miss P complains the appeal panel failed to properly consider her appeal against the decision to refuse her daughter a place at her preferred school; as a result, her daughter is extremely upset as she has to attend a school which is far away, and Miss P cannot help her get there as she has a job and other children to drop off.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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)
- 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)
- When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
How I considered this complaint
- I considered all the information Miss P sent and the Council’s response to my enquiries. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Miss P and the Council. I considered the Council’s response.
What I found
Travel to school for children of compulsory school age: statutory guidance for local authorities (January 2024)
- Parents are responsible for ensuring their child attends school. This means they must take all the action necessary to enable their child to attend school. For most, this includes making arrangements for their child to travel to and from school. Local authorities must make arrangements, free of charge, for eligible children to travel to school.
- An eligible child is a child of compulsory school age who: attends their nearest suitable school and lives more than the statutory walking distance from that school or; would not be able to walk to that school in reasonably safety, even if accompanied by their parent. A child aged 8 years or over is eligible for free travel to their nearest suitable school if it is more than 3 miles from home.
School Admission Appeals Code (October 2022)
- Under the Code, the panel must ensure the decision sent following the hearing is easily comprehensible so the parties can understand the basis of the decision. The decision letter must contain a summary of relevant factors raised by the parties and considered by the panel. It must give clear reasons for the panel’s decision, including how and why any issues of fact or law were decided by the panel during the hearing. (paragraph 2.28)
- The clerk must ensure an accurate record is taken of the points raised at the hearing, including the proceedings, attendance, voting, and reasons for decisions. (paragraph 2.29)
- Under the Code, panels must follow the two-stage decision making process for all appeals except for infant class size appeals (paragraph 3.1 to 3.10):
First Stage: examining the decision to refuse admission:
- The panel must consider the following for each child subject to an appeal:
- whether the admission arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements of the School Admissions Code and Part 3 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998; and
- whether the admission arrangements were correctly and impartially applied in the case in question.
- The panel must then decide whether the admission of further children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.
- The panel must uphold the appeal at first stage where:
- it finds the admission arrangements did not comply with admissions law or had not been correctly and impartially applied, and the child would have been offered a place if the arrangements had complied, or had been correctly and impartially applied; or
- it finds the admission of additional children would not prejudice the provision of efficient education or efficient use of resources. (paragraph 3.5)
- The panel must go the second stage where: it finds the admission arrangements complied with admissions law and they were correctly and impartially applied to the child or; finds the admission arrangements did not comply with admissions law or were not correctly and impartially applied but that if they had, and been correctly and impartially applied, the child would not have been offered a place and; it finds the admission of further children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or efficient use of resources. (paragraph 3.7)
Second Stage: balancing the arguments:
- The panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for the child to be admitted to the school. It must take account of the appellant’s reasons for expressing a preference for the school, including what the school can offer the child the allocated or other schools cannot. If the panel considers the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal. (paragraph 3.8)
- It must consider the impact on the school of admitting further children.
- Appellants may complain about maladministration on the part of the panel to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman in respect of maintained schools. Admission authorities must inform parents about the arrangements for making a complaint. (paragraph 5.4)
School Admissions Code (September 2021)
- Catchment areas must be designed so they are reasonable and clearly defined. Catchment areas do not prevent parents who live outside the catchment of a particular school from expressing a preference for the school. (paragraph 1.14)
What happened
- Miss P applied for a Year 7 place for her daughter Q at her catchment secondary school (school 1) starting in September 2024. The Council, as admissions authority, refused her a place at the school and instead offered her a place at another school (school 2).
- Miss P appealed its decision to an independent appeal panel. Her submissions were:
- the ethos of the school 1 was better for Q;
- difficulties she and Q had with Q’s father which included domestic violence and a change of school which meant she already had a move away from all her friends;
- the trauma this caused Q. The move to her junior school helped her recover but left her sensitive to change, especially with friendships;
- all her friends were going to school 1 which was Q’s catchment school and closest school;
- limited public transport to school 2 meant she and her partner would have to drive her there and back each day. She would arrive there late if she used the bus because of bus times and changes;
- she and her partner work full-time. They have another child at another primary school and a young child who is cared for by her grandparents/nursery. The logistics of dropping all three children off at different locations would be impossible;
- her partner had set work hours each day and must travel to different sites; and
- school 2 was five miles away, further than claimed by the Council.
- The Council measured home to school distance by straight line using software. School 1 was 2.666 miles from Miss P’s house. The last child offered a place under the catchment category of its oversubscription criteria and distance lived 1.803 miles from the school. School 2 was 3.677 miles from her house. Miss P argued the actual distance from home to school 2 was closer to five miles, not the straight-line distance the Council used. School 3 was within a neighbouring local authority area.
- The Council’s website stated an applicant should consider applying for the catchment school. It explained naming a catchment school did not guarantee an application would succeed but, they were more likely to get a place in one than another school outside the catchment area. It did not explain a catchment area school might not be the nearest school. Nor did it explain the nearest school could be in a neighbouring local authority area.
- The Council accepted a notice on the catchment area webpage explaining this may be useful and so will add it.
- The oversubscription criteria set out how the Council would assess an application for a school which had received more applications than it had places for. Category C and D were for children within the school’s catchment area.
- At the hearing, the clerk’s notes recorded Miss P’s partner explained the problem with the bus route to school 2 compared to school 1. To get to school 2 would involve two different buses and the bus arrived at school two minutes before the school day started which meant she would be late. While he drove past school 1 each day to get to work, he could not do that with school 2 as it would make him late.
- Miss P explained she left home at 8.30am each morning and drove to a primary school with the middle child. The internet showed this would take between 11-15 minutes to drive. She then needed to take the youngest child to nursery which was on the same route before going on to work, which is about 17 minutes in the car. School 2 starts at 8.45am. Miss P explained she worked at the same office as her partner, who has a senior position there. She has more flexible hours than him and confirmed she travelled to work in her own car.
- The clerk’s notes for the panel hearing do not record the outcome of the panel’s decision at the first stage of the hearing. The three questions the panel had to answer were left blank. The clerk apologised for this omission and explained the panel had decided the first stage and answered all three questions on the first appeal. This was held at 10am on the first day of the hearings. The clerk intended to copy the answers over to the remaining 24 appeals. The clerk forgot to do so.
- The clerk’s notes record the panel’s decision at stage two. Members noted: the submission that driving Q to school 2 was not feasible because of work; interest about why it was not feasible to take Q to school and queried if there was responsibility for Miss P; Miss P was employed at the same office her partner worked in a senior position; both her and her partner had a car; most of Miss P’s case was about ‘the travel/convenience’; there was no suggestion they might ‘modify their patterns to discharge their responsibility’; it was about transport more than anything else; with her partner’s senior position, and Miss P having some flexible working, there should be a ‘fair degree of flexibility’.
- In response to our enquiries, the Council said:
- the actual home to school distance for school 2 was about 4.7 miles. It had not given this information to the panel for consideration as it used the straight-line distance provided by the admissions team.
- the panel decided Miss P could drive Q to school. This was because she worked for her partner, had flexible hours, had her own car, and could modify her daily routine to take her.
- the panel considered Miss P was responsible for ensuring Q got to school;
- when considering the logistical problems Miss P faced each morning, the panel did not explore distances and timing involved with dropping off each child at different locations;
- the panel did not consider the bus journey from home to school 2 because it decided Miss P could take her; and
- it did not consider Q had already changed school and left her previous friends.
- The decision letter from the panel set out the main points of Miss P’s submissions and ended by saying it was of the opinion her grounds of appeal failed to outweigh the prejudice that would be caused by Q’s admission. The letter did not signpost Miss P to the Ombudsman.
My findings
- I found fault on this complaint for the following reasons:
- There was a failure by the clerk to record the outcome of the first stage of the appeal hearing. While this was recorded on the first appeal case held two days before Miss P’s appeal, this was not set out in the decision record the clerk made. This was fault because under paragraph 2.29 of the Code, a record should have been made. I am not satisfied this caused Miss P an injustice. This was because there was evidence of the panel deciding the first stage.
- The clerk’s note recorded the panel’s reasoning for its decision to refuse this appeal. The panel focused on Miss P’s responsibility to ensure Q attended school 2. In doing so, it made assumptions which were not fully explored during the hearing with her or her partner. For example, the decision record showed the panel noted both her and her partner had a car. They both worked for the same firm with her partner in a senior position. There was an assumption Miss P and her partner could modify their working patterns, especially Miss P who said she had some flexibility working.
- There was nothing to show the panel explored this with either of them or whether the firm could allow her to arrive or leave work earlier to allow her to transport their children. The assumption made was this was a possibility without establishing whether it was. Whether or not there was a ‘fair degree of flexibility’ was a matter for the firm to decide, not Miss P and possibly not even her partner despite his senior position within it.
- The panel assumed it was reasonable for Miss P to drop all three children off without clarifying the details of what she did each morning. For example, she said she set off at 8.30am but the panel failed to ask why this was so. Perhaps this was the earliest she could get to the primary school or nursery or the grandparents’ house and so was a fixed point in time. This was not explored and was relevant to the knock-on impact it would have on her work start time.
- Nor did the panel look at the actual distances Miss P needed to travel and the time it would take, for each leg of her morning journey before getting to work. I looked at the distances for each leg of her journey using a route journey planner on the internet. I note, for example, this stated the journey time from her home to the middle child’s primary school was about 11-15 minutes by car. If she had not dropped the youngest at the nursery before going to the primary school, Miss P then needed to double back along the same route to take the youngest child there, which would add further time. She would then have to take Q to school 2, a journey of about 10 minutes before then going on to work, a journey of about 13 minutes. Her total journey time each morning, without taking account of the handover time at the nursery, for example, would be around 45 minutes depending on traffic. No consideration was given to free home to school transport as an alternative.
- The Council accepted the panel had not considered, when making its decision, the following:
- the distance and timing Miss P faced when dropping each child off at each leg of her morning journey before getting to work;
- Miss P’s submission about Q already having changed one school already because of her father’s behaviour; and
- her submission about the bus journey Q would need to take to get to school 2. This was a relevant submission as Q would have to take the bus if Miss P was ill or could not take her to school for some other reason, such as one of her children being ill, for example.
- I am satisfied these failings breached paragraph 3.8 of the Code.
- While the decision letter to Miss P explained what the panel considered when reaching its decision, it ended by stating the panel considered her appeal grounds did not outweigh the prejudice that would be caused by her admission. It failed to explain how the panel reached this decision. I considered this breached paragraph 2.28 of the Code. This was because it failed to give clear reasons for the panel’s decision ‘including how, and why, any issues of fact or law were decided by the panel during the hearing’. It also had to be easily comprehensible so the parties could understand the basis on which it was made, which I consider it failed to do.
- The decision letter failed to signpost Miss P to us if she remained unhappy with the outcome of the appeal. This breached paragraph 5.4 of the Code. I am not satisfied this caused her an injustice as she complained to us anyway so did not lose the chance to do so.
- Despite what the Council said, I saw nothing on its website about catchment schools which explained the catchment school might not be the nearest school to home. The Council accepted information on its website about catchment schools could be added to explain the nearest school might not be the catchment school and could be in a neighbouring local authority area. It will look at including a notice on this webpage explaining this.
- On balance, I am not satisfied this caused Miss P an injustice. This was because it was clear from her submissions her preferred school was school 1 which was where all Q’s friends were going. I consider it unlikely, therefore, that even if this information had been brought to her attention, Miss P would have applied for Q to go to school 3.
Agreed action
- I considered our guidance on remedies.
- The Council agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
- Send Miss P a written apology for failing to: properly consider her submissions when deciding her appeal; clearly set out the reasons for the panel’s decision in the decision letter.
- Arrange for a new hearing of Miss P’s appeal with another independent appeal panel.
- Remind all panel members and clerks of the need for the panel to properly consider submissions made.
- Remind all clerks of the need for decision letters to give clear reasons for the panel’s decision which explain how and why issues of facts or law raised during the hearing were decided.
- The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
- I found fault on the complaint made by Miss P against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman