Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to question the panel’s decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for his son (Y). Mr X says he was not given enough notice of the appeal, evidence was submitted late, and he is unhappy with the panel’s decision.

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 an independent 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and St John’s Cathedral Catholic Primary School (the School).
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Mr X applied for Y to move to Year 1 at the School. Because the School had already reached its Published Admission Number of 30 it refused his application. Mr X appealed the decision.

The appeals process

6. Independent school admission appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. The School Admission Appeals Code (the Code) sets out the law about school admission appeals.
7. The Code says no later than 10 school days before the hearing, the admission authority must provide appellants with written notification of the date and arrangements for the hearing. The notification must include a deadline for sending further evidence after which the panel might not accept it.
8. The Code also says the clerk must send all the papers for the appeal a reasonable time before the hearing. A panel can decide whether it will consider evidence not sent by the specified deadline.
9. The Code says the size of an infant class must not be more than 30 pupils per teacher. There are only limited circumstances in which more than 30 children can be admitted. There are special rules governing appeals for reception and years 1 and 2, where admitting another child would mean there would be more than 30 pupils per teacher. Appeals under these rules are known as “infant class size appeals”. Infant class size legislation applied to the appeal which is the subject of this complaint.
10. The rules say the panel must consider whether:
• admitting another child would breach the class size limit;
• the admission arrangements comply with the law;
• the admission arrangements were properly applied to the case;
• the decision to refuse a place was one which a reasonable authority would have made in the circumstances.
11. What is ‘unreasonable’ is a high test, and for it to be met, the panel would need to be sure the decision to refuse a place was “perverse” or “outrageous”. For that reason, panels rarely find an admission authority’s decision to be unreasonable.

Appeal

12. Mr X attended his appeal. The clerk’s notes show the School’s representative presented their case. The School’s PAN was 30 and there were 30 children in the class. Admitting a further child would therefore breach the infant class size limit. Mr X and the panel could ask questions.
13. Mr X presented his case. I will not set this out in full, but it was in line with his written appeal. Mr X explained why he wanted his son to transfer to the School. Mr X explained his concerns about Y’s current school. Mr X felt the School should have offered Y a place and the decision to refuse his application was unreasonable. Mr X felt his case was an “exceptional circumstance”.
14. In its deliberations the panel considered information about the School. The panel decided its admission arrangements were lawful and the School had properly applied them. There had been no errors with the School’s handling of Y’s application. The panel decided admitting a further child would breach the infant class size limit. The panel decided it was not an unreasonable decision to refuse admission. None of the grounds for allowing an infant class size appeal had been met and so the panel refused the appeal. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.

Assessment

15. I understand Mr X is unhappy the appeal was unsuccessful. But we are not a right of further appeal and cannot question properly taken decisions. As previously explained, the threshold for an infant class size appeal to succeed is very high.
16. The evidence I have seen shows Mr X was told of the hearing more than ten school days in advance. This meets the requirements of the Code.
17. In the run up to the hearing there was an exchange of emails between Mr X, the clerk, and the School. This included the Chair of the panel asking for a copy of an email sent by Mr X which he referred to in his written appeal. The Chair asked for this email eight days before the appeal. Ultimately, it was for the panel to decide what evidence to accept after the specified deadline. There is not enough evidence of fault in the run up to the hearing for us to criticise its administration.
18. The evidence I have seen shows the appeal followed the expected process and contained the stages required by the Code. All parties had the chance to present their cases and could ask questions. The panel were provided with the written information Mr X sent with his appeal. The clerk’s notes show the panel considered all the information presented. The panel considered the required tests and decided not to uphold the appeal. This is a decision the panel was entitled to take. The clerk’s notes are detailed and the panel’s decision letter to Mr X shows how the panel reached its decision.
19. Based on the information available there is not enough evidence of fault in how the panel considered and decided the appeal for the Ombudsman to become involved. An investigation is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman