Summary: Ms X complained that the Independent Admission Appeals Panel failed to properly consider her appeal for a school place for her child. There was fault in the way the Panel considered Ms X’s appeal and reached its decision. The Council will apologise to Ms X for the avoidable frustration and uncertainty caused by the fault, hold a new appeal hearing with new panel members and clerk and provide training or guidance on the statutory guidance for clerks and panel members.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about an unsuccessful school admissions appeal for a primary school place for her child, Z. More specifically, she complained that the Independent Admission Appeals Panel (the Panel) failed to properly consider her appeal for a place at School A. She said the Council also admitted other children to School A despite Z being number one on its waiting list.
2. Ms X said as a result, they were caused distress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way a school admissions appeals panel made its decision. If there was no fault in how the panel made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. 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)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke to Ms X about her complaint.
6. I considered evidence provided by the Council in response to our initial enquiries as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

8. Statutory guidance about school admissions and appeals is within the School Admissions Code and School Admission Appeals Code, published by the Department for Education.
9. Parents have the right to appeal an admission authority’s decision not to offer their child a school place.

Appeals

10. 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. 

Before the appeal

11. 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 Code states that the information from the admission authority must include the reasons for the decision to refuse admission and an explanation as to how admission of an additional child would cause prejudice to the provision of efficient education or efficient use of resources.

During the appeal

12. The admission authority must provide a presenting officer at the hearing to explain the decision not to admit the child and to answer questions from the appellant and panel. 
13. Panels must follow a two-stage decision making process. 
14. Stage one: 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.  

15. At stage one, this includes taking into consideration:

• the school’s published admission number (PAN) which is the number of places the school will offer at each point of entry. The admission authority must show prejudice over and above the fact that the PAN has already been reached,
• changes to the school’s facilities,
• the impact on the organisation and size of classes, the availability of teaching staff, and the effect on pupils already at the school,
• the impact of the locally agreed Fair Access Protocol,
• the effect an additional pupil would have on the school both now and in the future as the year group moves through the school.

16. 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. 
17. 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.  
18. 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 that a child shall be admitted to a school is binding on the admission authority concerned.
19. The Code states 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.

After the appeal

20. The clerk to the panel ‘must’ communicate the decision of each appeal including the reasons for that decision in writing to the appellant, the admission authority, and the council.
21. The decision letter must give clear reasons for the panel’s decision including how, and why, any issues of fact or law were decided during the hearing. 

The Council’s admissions criteria

22. The Council publishes the admissions/oversubscription criteria for schools it governs on its website. This criteria is used when schools receive more applications than available places, to determine which children are given priority.
23. The admissions criteria for School A states that children with an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan must be admitted where the school is named. Where the school is not named in the EHC Plan then the admissions criteria will be applied in the following priority order:

• Looked after children or previously looked after children,
• Medical or social reasons or children ‘at risk’ if they are currently on or subject to a Child Protection Plan (applications from this category will only be considered if they are supported by a written statement from doctors or relevant independent professionals),
• Siblings,
• School staff children; and,
• Distance.

What happened

24. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
25. Ms X’s child Z is of primary school age. In early August 2024 Ms X made an in-year application for a school place for Z at School A because they were going to move to the area soon. School A is a community school, so the Council is the admissions authority and is responsible for admissions and appeals. In her application for a place at School A, Ms X stated that a place at this school would enable her to get childcare support from relatives whose children also attended the same school.
26. In mid-August 2024 the Council issued a decision not to offer Z a place at School A. it said there were more applications than available places and other applicants had a higher priority than Z under the school’s published admissions criteria. It told Ms X that Z should remain on roll at their current school until a place became available. It provided information about the waiting list for School A and the right of appeal against its decision. Places on the waiting list for School A are prioritised in line with the admissions criteria.
27. In early November 2024 Ms X called the Council’s school admissions line to provide the moving date to their new address. Ms X said the Council told her to email the change in their details and that Z was number one on the waiting list for School A. Ms X said she emailed the Council two days later to provide their new address.
28. Ms X said that her relatives who worked at and had children at School A told her that two new students were admitted to Z’s year group in mid-November.
29. In mid-November 2024 Ms X contacted the Council again – she said she was told that Z was number one on the waiting list and that she did not understand why other children had been given places at School A when this was the case. Ms X said she also found out that the Council had not updated their old address even though she had provided their new address earlier in the month.
30. In mid-November 2024 Ms X also appealed the Council’s decision not to offer Z a place at School A. She said she wanted Z to attend School A not only because it was close to their home but also because she could share childcare responsibilities with a family member who had children at School A. She queried why Z had not been offered a place if School A was not at capacity and when they were number one on the waiting list.
31. In late November 2024 the Council wrote to Ms X to offer Z a place at School B. It reiterated that it had not been able to offer a place at Ms X’s preferred School A as there were more applications than available places and other applicants had a higher priority than Z. Ms X said she did not accept a place at School B as she did not want to change Z’s school and then change it again if they got offered a place at School A.
32. The appeal hearing took place in late January 2025 which Ms X attended virtually. The Council’s presenting officer (the Officer) presented School A’s case as set out in the generic admission to ‘secondary’ school statement.
33. The Council’s “general” statement for refusing admission stated the following:

• Councils are required to coordinate "secondary” transfer admissions to enable the parent of a child to express preference (and reasons for this preference) of school at which they wish for their child to be educated.
• The admissions authority (the Council) must comply with parental preference unless to do so would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.
• The Council was unable to allocate a place at the preferred school because other children were deemed a higher priority.
• The Council believed that admitting more children would prejudice the efficient education and use of resources. It said that to admit more children to the year group would adversely affect the education of children in four main areas, namely health and safety/physical space, resources for teaching and learning, teacher time and attention and under the Fair Access Protocol.
• The Council’s case was that “schools for which appeals are being heard are full, that no errors have been made in the administration of the admissions process in the handling of the appellants’ applications; and the decisions made in refusing places to the appellants are reasonable in the circumstances of the case.”

34. The Officer explained reasons for refusal in Z’s case – no medical/social factors, no siblings and they also noted the distance from home to School A and School B. They also gave the Panel additional details of the breakdown of year group vacancies.
35. Ms X said two children were given places in Z’s school year at School A. The Panel questioned why Z was not given a school place. The Officer stated there were two vacancies in Z’s year group – one place went to a child with an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and the other went to a child who lived closer than Z. They said applications were not on a “first come first served” basis and that the waiting lists changed regularly based on the Council’s admissions criteria.
36. Ms X said Z had a health condition that impacted their diet so they should have a medical priority. The Panel asked if a child with an EHC Plan had a higher priority than medical. The Officer stated that the waiting list was a “live list that changed daily” and was held in order of priority in line with the admissions criteria – Looked After Children, Medical/Social, Siblings and then Distance. Ms X had not applied for the school based on any medical reasons.
37. The Panel asked questions about what the likelihood of vacancies for Z’s year group was and the absent rates in class.
38. The Panel asked Ms X if she had further reasons why Z should attend School A. Ms X provided further information about work commitments and Z’s diagnosed conditions.
39. The Panel queried if Ms X had any GP letters for Z’s health conditions – Ms X said she was not aware she needed to provide these. The Panel also asked Ms X to apply for an EHC Plan for Z when she said their current school had not.
40. The clerk’s notes of the appeal hearing showed the Panel:

• unanimously agreed that admissions arrangements were lawful – although Z was first on the waiting list, places were allocated to those with a higher priority, so no errors had been made.
• agreed that prejudice would arise if Z was given a place at School A for “reasons set out in the Council’s statement.”
• noted that there was no information about Z’s conditions in the appeal form and that Ms X had not pursued a “statement from school” regarding this. It considered that all schools could deal with Z’s conditions so there was no reason to “go over numbers”. Further, Ms X could also send Z to School B which was close to home.
• noted that the Council’s statement was “generic” and there was nothing specific from School A. The Panel said that School A was a community school, so it accepted the Council’s reasons. It noted “same issues in all schools”.
• unanimously agreed that Ms X’s case did not outweigh the prejudice that would arise if more children were admitted to School A.

41. The Council issued its decision letter a couple of days later to inform Ms X that her appeal had been unsuccessful. In it, the Council stated that the Panel:

• considered the school’s admission number in Z’s year group and the number of children currently allocated places in that year group (both 180). It also considered reasons why Z had been refused a place (others had a higher priority than Z) and the consequences of admitting additional children to Z’s year group.
• was satisfied that the school’s published admission arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements of the Schools Admissions Code.
• was satisfied that the school had applied the admission policy properly and impartially in Z’s case – it reiterated that waiting lists moved “up and down” depending on the circumstances of other applicants and in Z’s case, two other applicants had a higher priority than Z, so they were offered places at School A.
• decided that for reasons “set out in the statement submitted by the admissions authority” the Panel accepted that admitting pupils over the admission number would compromise the school’s ability to provide the best service to pupils.
• considered Ms X’s arguments for Z to attend School A but decided that her case was not sufficiently compelling to outweigh the prejudice.

42. Ms X was unhappy with the Panel’s decision and complained to us in March 2025.

Findings

43. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and we cannot question an independent panel’s decision unless there was fault in the way it came to that decision. If we find there was fault in the panel’s decision-making, we normally ask for the appeal to be heard again properly.
44. Stage one of the appeals process requires the panel to decide if admitting further children would “prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources”. The panel can only move to stage two of the process if it decides that there would be prejudice. In deciding whether there may be prejudice, the panel should consider various factors that demonstrate prejudice to the school over and above the fact that the published admission number (PAN) has been reached.
45. The Council’s statement in Ms X’s case was poor; there was no mention of School A’s PAN nor any other details specific to School A - details such as (but not limited to) School A’s classroom sizes and the number of children they can accommodate, number of teaching and non-teaching staff, number of pupils with high needs on roll at School A and the pressures admitting an additional child would create on these resources and learning. The Council’s written statement referred to admission to a secondary school when Ms X’s appeal was for a primary school place.
46. In order to have considered Ms X’s stage one appeal properly as per the Appeals Code and in line with the principles of natural justice, the Panel was required to scrutinise the Council’s case for evidence which demonstrated that admitting Z would have caused prejudice to school A’s resources and pupils. But the Council’s case was a generic statement. While the Panel acknowledged this, neither the Panel nor the clerk challenged it. The Panel stated the generic statement was acceptable as School A was a community school and all schools had same issues. This was fault and meant the Panel failed to properly consider whether School A would be caused prejudice by Z’s admission.
47. The Panel should not have moved to stage two of the appeals process without first satisfying itself that the tests of stage one had been properly considered and met as per the Appeals Code.
48. The Council’s appeal outcome letter referred to the matters the Panel considered including School A’s published admission number (PAN). However, the clerk’s notes of the appeal hearing showed no mention of the school’s PAN and neither did the Council’s written statement. Whilst the Council’s decision letter communicated the Panel’s decision it did not explain how the Panel reached this decision. This was fault. I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, what the outcome would have been but for the fault. This leaves uncertainty for Ms X and Z about what the Panel’s decision would have been if it had considered stage one of Ms X’s appeal properly.

Back to top

Agreed action

49. Within one month of the final decision the Council will apologise to Ms X for the avoidable frustration and uncertainty caused by the Independent Admissions Appeals Panel’s failure to properly consider her appeal. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
50. Within 30 school days of the new school term, the Council will hold a fresh appeal hearing with new panel members and clerk and consider stage one and stage two of Ms X’s appeal in line with the statutory guidance. If the appeal is upheld the Council will offer Z a school place.
51. Within two months of the final decision the Council will provide training or guidance to panel members and clerks to ensure they are aware of their responsibilities at stage one of the appeals process in accordance with the statutory guidance.
52. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

53. I have completed my investigation. I found fault causing injustice and the Council agreed to my recommendations and service improvement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman