Hampshire County Council (24 013 767)

Category : Education > School admissions

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 18 Nov 2024

The Ombudsman's final decision:

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 be able to question the panel’s decision.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for his daughter (Y). Mr X says the presenting officer misled the panel when discussing the infant class size limit.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Background

  1. Mr X and his family moved address. Mr X applied for Y and their elder sibling to attend the local school (School Z). The Council offered the eldest child a place but refused Mr X’s application for a place in year 1 for (Y). This was because the school was full in year 1. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision.

The appeals process

  1. 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 (referred to in the School Admissions Code as ‘excepted pupils’). 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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

  1. Mr X attended the appeal. The clerk’s notes show School Z’s representative presented their case. They explained why School Z had not offered Y a place. School Z’s PAN was 45 and because of the way it organised its classes, admitting a further child to year 1 would breach the infant class size limit. Parents and the panel could ask questions.
  2. Mr X presented his case. This was in line with the written appeal submitted. Mr X explained the family had just moved and School Z was very close to home. Mr X wanted Y to be able to walk to school and her current school was too far away. Mr X wanted Y to go to school with their sibling.
  3. In its deliberations the panel considered information about School Z. The panel decided its admission arrangements were lawful and the Council had properly applied them. There had been no errors with the 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

  1. I understand Mr 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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. This is a decision the panel was entitled to take. The clerk’s notes and the panel’s decision letter show how the panel reached its decision.
  4. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, Mr X stated the officer representing School Z claimed an infant class size had never been breached in Hampshire outside a specific list of exceptions. Mr X says he made a freedom of information request to the Council after the appeal. The Council said it does not hold this information and it would take too long to collate. Mr X therefore says the presenting officer acted dishonestly and it had a material impact on his appeal.
  5. I was not at the appeal so need to make a decision based on the information available. The clerk’s notes from the appeal do show a discussion about exceptions to the infant class size rule. These include Mr X asking if School Z had ever breached the infant class size limit. The presenting officer said “They wouldn’t be allowed to as it is against the law. There are the exceptions in [the School Admissions Code] which may have applied.” Mr X then asked “So are you are saying that this has never been over-ridden?” The presenting officer replied “No, not to my knowledge”. The presenting officer also stated that “I have never come across a case where an admission over PAN has occurred that does not come into one of those excepted categories.”
  6. The notes therefore show a discussion which explored the grounds on which the infant class size limit can be breached. The notes show the presenting officer explaining they were not aware of the limit being breached other than when one of the permitted exceptions apply.
  7. Based on all the evidence I cannot say the presenting officer misled the panel and acted dishonestly. Even if we did decide the presenting officer had said the infant class size limit had never been breached, outside the permitted exceptions, that does not change the fact that the threshold for such an appeal to succeed is extremely high. There is no reason to think the panel was not aware of the high bar for the appeal to succeed. There is no evidence the panel did not properly consider the issue of whether to uphold an appeal covered by infant class size legislation.
  8. 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

  1. We will not investigate Mr 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

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings