Summary: We will not investigate Miss 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. Miss X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her daughter (Y). Miss X questions if the panel properly considered the evidence she sent in support of her appeal.

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 Gregory’s Primary School (the School).
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Miss X applied for Y to start reception in September 2024. St Gregory’s was Miss X’s first choice of school. There were more applications than places available and so the School used its oversubscription criteria to decide which children it would offer places. The School did not offer Y a place. Miss X appealed this decision.

The appeals process

6. Independent school admission appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. The law 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.
7. 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.
8. 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

9. Miss X attended the appeal. The clerk’s notes show the School’s representative presented their case. The School’s Published Admission Number was 30 and this matched the number of places offered. Admitting a further child would therefore breach the infant class size limit. Parents and the panel could ask questions.
10. Miss X presented her case. This was in line with the written appeal she had submitted. Miss X explained Y already attends the nursery at the School. The family had struggled with a recent bereavement. Y’s family were Catholics and Miss X was due to return to work as a teacher. She was therefore dependent on the wraparound care at the School.
11. In its deliberations the panel considered information about the School. The panel decided its admission arrangements were lawful and there had been no errors which affected Miss X’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

12. I understand Miss X is unhappy the appeal was unsuccessful. But we are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions which were properly taken. As previously explained, the threshold for an infant class size appeal to succeed is very high.
13. The evidence I have seen shows the appeal followed the expected process and contained the stages required by the School Admission Appeals Code (the Code). All parties had the chance to present their cases and could ask questions. The panel were provided with the written information Miss X sent with her appeal. The clerk’s notes show the panel considered all the information it was presented with. The panel considered the required tests and decided not to uphold the appeal. In summary, the panel decided it was not an unreasonable decision to refuse admission. This is a decision the panel was entitled to take.
14. In her complaint to the Ombudsman Miss X has referred to successful appeals in previous years. But panels need to decide each case on its merits. 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

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to question the panel’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman