JCOSS (24 006 425)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Mr X complained how the appeal panel dealt with his appeal for a place for his son at the School. We have found fault because details of the panel’s discussions and decision have not been recorded in sufficient depth. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise and arrange a fresh appeal.
The complaint
- Mr X complains about an unsuccessful year 7 appeal for his son (Y) to attend, The Ronson Jewish Community School. Mr X says the appeal panel did not follow the correct procedures in hearing the appeal.
- Mr X says this has caused him distress and frustration and that the school should revisit its decision on his appeal.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
- We cannot question whether a decision by a body is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
- An admission appeal panel is a statutory tribunal but, it is also within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25). When considering a complaint after an appeal has been rejected, there may be parts which relate to what happened at the appeal and parts which relate to the original admission process (for example, something about the way a decision was taken by the admissions authority which the appeal panel did not consider) which we can investigate.
- 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)
How I considered this complaint
- I have considered all the information Mr X provided and discussed this complaint with him. I have also considered information the Council sent in response to our enquiries.
- Mr X and the School had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I carefully considered all comments before reaching a final decision.
What I found
What should have happened
- Parents have the right to appeal an admission authority’s decision not to offer their child a school place.
- Appeal hearings must be held in private and conducted in the presence of all panel members and parties. Appeal panels must act according to the principles of natural justice.
- A clerk supports the appeal panel. Parents can submit information in support of their appeal. The clerk must send all papers required for the hearing a reasonable time before the date of the hearing. This includes information from the appellant and the admission authority.
- The clerk must take an accurate record of the hearing, including the proceedings, attendance, voting and reasons for decisions.
- Appeal panels must either uphold or dismiss an appeal and must not uphold an appeal subject to any conditions. Appeals must be decided by a simple majority of votes cast. A panel’s decision is binding on the admission authority concerned.
- The clerk to the panel must write to the appellant, the admission authority and the council with the panel’s decision and reasons.
Decision-making process
- Panels must follow a two-stage decision making process.
- Stage 1: the panel examines the decision to refuse admission. The panel must consider whether:
- the admissions arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements set out in the School Admissions Code;
- the admission arrangements were applied correctly; and if
- the admission of additional children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.
- If a panel decides that admitting further children would “prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources” they move to the second stage of the process.
- Stage 2: balancing the arguments. The panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for the child to be admitted.
What happened
- Mr X has a son, Y, who was due to start secondary school in September 2024. Y was offered a place at a Jewish school that was on a lower place preference than, The Ronson Jewish Community School (the School).
- Mr X appealed the decision. He attached supporting documents including statements from Y’s primary school. The School submitted its case and explained that places had been allocated to the published number and admission of applicants over and above this number would prejudice the provision of efficient education and the efficient use of resources.
- The clerk’s notes show that at the hearing the panel asked Mr X about not sending Y to a particular Jewish primary school and about his applications to other secondary schools. The panel also asked Mr X whether Y required an Education, Health and Care Plan in relation to his special educational needs.
- The clerk’s notes briefly state the panel decided at stage 1 and stage 2 that the admission arrangements were correctly applied and there was another Jewish secondary school nearby that could offer Y schooling. The panel unanimously decided the prejudice to the school outweighed Mr X’s case and refused the appeal. The School sent a decision letter to Mr X on this basis.
Analysis
- As part of the investigation, we requested the School send us the minutes of the appeal panel meeting and the clerk’s notes made at the time. This would allow us to understand how the decisions had been reached and whether the correct process had been followed.
- I set out in paragraphs 9-18 the process the appeals panel must go through when considering an admissions appeal. The clerk’s notes do not have to reflect what took place word for word, but it should be possible to tell how the panel arrived at its decision. The clerk must ensure an accurate record is taken of the reasons for decisions.
- In this case, I have some concerns the clerk’s notes do not sufficiently set out the panel’s decision making about prejudice to the school. The record does not refer to any reasons why the panel’s view was the case for prejudice had been met and how Y’s admission would prejudice the provision of efficient education or use of resources at the School. The panel must reach a decision on this point before moving on to the second stage of the process. There is no clear evidence of how the panel decided the issue of prejudice and therefore I am not satisfied the panel properly considered the first stage of the process. My decision is that was fault.
- In the second stage, the panel must assess whether the child’s needs are so exceptional that they should override the prejudice to the school of admitting an additional pupil. This is known as the ‘balancing stage’ and is a matter for the panel’s judgement considering all the available information. However, as I have found fault at stage one, this casts doubt on the second stage of the process and Mr X cannot be certain that all relevant information had been properly considered by the panel.
- The letter sent to notify Mr X of the panel’s decision should also be easy to understand so that those involved can be aware of the basis on which the decision was made.
- However, as this letter would be written from the notes of the meeting and panel discussions, I am satisfied it lacks relevant detail in giving clear reasons for the decision, including how and why any issues or facts were decided by the panel during the hearing. This lack of detail is fault. It again meant that Mr X could not be certain all relevant facts had been considered or how and why the decision had been made.
- During the appeals process, the independent panel asked Mr X questions that he found inappropriate. The panel asked about him not sending Y to a particular Jewish primary school and about his applications to other secondary schools. I consider these to be fair questions and do not find fault.
- I appreciate that Mr X disputes the questions were fair, however, on the balance of probabilities, I do not consider it was unreasonable for the Panel to explore his choice of schooling for Y. The minutes of the hearing and decision letter show the Panel took into consideration, the concerns Mr X raised about Y’s medical conditions and that there were other Jewish school options available. I have weighed up the evidence and do not find the Panel’s decision to refuse Y a school place was based upon Mr X’s responses to the questions about his choice of primary or secondary schools.
Agreed action
- To remedy the injustice caused by the faults I have identified, the School will take the following action within four weeks of the date of my final decision:
- apologise to Mr X for the frustration and distress caused by the lack of sufficiently detailed panel minutes of the appeals process;
- arrange a fresh appeal with a new panel and a new clerk for the hearing: and
- remind its clerks that their decision minutes should record the reasons for a decision at both stages of the appeal process.
- We expect the fresh appeal to be presented using the same information about the availability of places at the time Mr X made his first appeal. This is to ensure he is not disadvantaged by other successful appeals decided since the original appeal, which may have increased pupil numbers at the School. We also expect the new panel to be advised of the fault identified in the first appeal.
- The School should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
I have found fault by the School causing an injustice. I have now completed my investigation.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman