Summary: Mrs Y complains about the way the school admissions appeal hearing was conducted following Whitley Bay High School’s decision to refuse her child a place. We find procedural fault because the notes of the hearing are not compliant with the School Admissions Appeal Code as they do not demonstrate how the panel made its decision and voted. The School will offer Mrs Y a fresh appeal with a different panel and clerk and arrange refresher training to ensure that panels and clerks are aware of their duty to document their decision making in line with the Code.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complained that Whitley Bay High School (‘WBHS’) failed to properly consider the arguments she presented during a school admissions appeal hearing against the decision to refuse a place for her child, B. Mrs Y says that fault in the process meant that B did not receive a place at WBHS.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered evidence provided by Mrs Y, WBHS and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mrs Y and WBHS had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

School admissions and oversubscription

6. Under the system of coordinated admissions, parents make a single application for a school place to their home council. This is the council the parent pays their council tax to. 
7. All schools must have a set of admission arrangements containing oversubscription criteria. These are set by the admission authority. The school’s admission authority uses the criteria to decide which children will receive an offer of a place if there are more applications than places available. The arrangements must also contain a Published Admission Number (PAN). This is the number of places the school will offer at each point of entry.
8. Oversubscription criteria will often be based on catchment areas and distance. Children whose address falls inside a catchment area will normally be given higher priority for admission to the school than those living outside the catchment area. 

School admission appeals

9. Parents and carers have the right to appeal against an admission authority’s decision not to offer their child a school place. Appeal hearings must be held privately and conducted in the presence of an independent panel and clerk. Appeal panels must act according to the principles of natural justice. 
10. The admission authority must provide a presenting officer at the hearing. The officer must explain the decision on behalf of the admissions authority not to admit the child and to answer questions from the appellant and panel. 
11. Appeal panels must allow appellants the opportunity to make oral representations.
12. Statutory guidance about school admission appeals can be found in the School Admission Appeals Code published by the Department for Education. Throughout this statement, I will refer to this as ‘the Code’. This sets out a two-stage decision making process:
• Stage 1: the panel examines the decision to refuse admission. The panel must consider whether
1. the admissions arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements set out in the Code,
2. if the admission arrangements were applied correctly; and
3. if the admission of additional children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.  
13. 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. At Stage 2, panels must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for the child to be admitted.  
14. Paragraph 2.26 of the Code says that appeals must be decided by a simple majority of votes cast. Paragraph 2.29 of the Code says 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.
15. After the hearing, the clerk must write to the appellant, the admission authority and the council with the panel’s decision and its reasons. 

What happened

16. Mrs Y has a child, who I will call B. They attend a High School which is due to close in August 2026. As a result, the North Tyneside Council (‘the Council’) planned for all affected children to transfer to other schools in the area and introduced an “extraordinary admissions round” for those children. The Council created a specific In Year application form for those affected by the school’s closure.
17. Mrs Y applied before the closing date and named Whitley Bay High School (‘WBHS’). Mrs Y said she wanted B to attend WBHS because they have a sibling due to start the sixth form there in September and WBHS was close to home.
18. The Council wrote to Mrs Y on 18 February 2025 to confirm that WBHS was unable to offer a place to B for September 2025. The letter said there were more applications than places available and WBHS applied its oversubscription criteria. B’s home to school distance was measured at 2.148 miles and the last child to be offered a place under the distance criteria was 1.206 miles.
19. Although B had a sibling due to start sixth form in September, WBHS’ oversubscription criteria say: “the sibling link does not apply to pupils proposing to return to Years 12 and 13 of a school sixth form”.
20. B received an offer for a place at an alternative school and Mrs Y received a right of appeal against the decision made by WBHS to refuse a place.
21. Mrs Y submitted her appeal on 4 February 2025. She said the alternative school offered to B was too far away from home. Mrs Y explained she has two other children who attend different schools, and it would not be possible to arrange for three different children to attend three different schools. One of B’s siblings will attend WBHS sixth form and Mrs Y wants them to attend together.
22. The Council wrote to Mrs Y on 26 February 2025 to confirm it had scheduled an appeal hearing for 31 March 2025. The Council reminded Mrs Y that she was able to attend the hearing in person to present her case on behalf of B. The letter also confirmed the Council would send more details about the hearing and the documentation which the panel will consider one week before the hearing.
23. B’s appeal went ahead on 31 March 2025 as planned. Mrs Y attended along with B’s father. The typed notes from stage one of the hearing show that WBHS presented its case of prejudice, describing how the school can take a maximum of 390 pupils for B’s year group. This is the PAN of 375 plus an additional 15 which the school agreed to admit due to the closure of the local High School.
24. After WBHS presented their case, and all parties asked their questions, the clerk made a note of the decision making at stage one. The notes said: “Admission arrangements clearly thorough/lawful/properly/impartially applied. Admitting children would prejudice the provision of efficient education and the efficient use of resources”.
25. The hearing proceeded to stage two. B’s parents re-entered to present their case.
26. The clerk’s notes show that B’s parents read out a statement in support of their case. B’s father explained the poor transport links to the allocated school. They explained the logistical difficulties with getting three children to different schools. B’s parents also explained that WBHS has a place of worship for B. They said B is currently separated from their friends who all attend WBHS. They said this has affected B’s mental health and B now struggles to sleep.
27. After Mrs Y and B’s father presented their case, they left the room for the panel to make their decision. The clerk’s notes of the decision making say:

“Conversation leant more on logistics of school drop offs.

[Alternative school] was applied for, offered and accepted.

There were other travel options for [B].

Mental health concerns were noted but no medical evidence of issue and or doc visit info/attempts to resolve. Not dispute seriousness but not see action.

Queried [place of worship] at school statement, probably meant faith room at WBHS and believe one also at [alternative school].

Not convinced WBHS only school able to fulfil needs/support [B].

Panel believe would prejudice school to add another child”.

28. Two days after the hearing, the clerk wrote to Mrs Y to confirm the panel’s decision not to allow the appeal for B. The letter echoed the same points which B’s parents had raised in the hearing but confirmed, “the panel concluded that [B’s] circumstances did not override the prejudice which would be caused by the admission of an additional child to the school and decided to reject your appeal”.
29. Mrs Y approached the Ombudsman because she felt WBHS acted with fault when it heard B’s appeal.

Was there fault causing injustice to Mrs Y and B?

30. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the person affected disagrees with the decision made.
31. I have considered the steps WBHS took to consider B’s appeal, and the information it took account of when deciding to refuse the appeal. In my view, there is fault in the way the clerk recorded the panel’s decision making. The notes fail to demonstrate the panel met its obligations under Paragraphs 2.25 to 2.27, to provide a clear and reasoned explanation of how it made its decision.
32. The summary of the panel’s stage one decision does not include any reasoning. While the clerk notes that the admission arrangements were properly applied, and that admitting additional children would prejudice the provision of efficient education and use of resources, there is no detail provided as to how the panel reached this conclusion.
33. To merely summarise the school’s position is insufficient. Under Paragraph 2.29 of the Code, the clerk must ensure that a written record is kept of how the panel made its decision, including the reasons behind it and any discussion that took place. In this case, the notes do not indicate what evidence the panel found persuasive, or how they assessed the school’s claims about capacity, staffing, resources, or class organisation. Without this, it is not possible to know whether the panel gave robust and independent consideration to the case at stage one, as required by the Code.
34. Additionally, at stage two the notes do not contain a record of any votes cast during the appeal hearing. This is not compliant with Paragraph 2.26 of the Code which states that appeals must be decided by a simple majority of votes cast.
35. Overall, the notes fall short of the standard of transparency, fairness, and reasoned decision-making required by the Code. Because of this, it is not possible to say whether the panel considered the evidence properly or applied the correct legal tests in B’s case. This has created uncertainty which WBHS has agreed to remedy with a fresh appeal.

Back to top

Action

36. Within four weeks of our final decision, WBHS has agreed to:
• Offer a fresh in-person appeal for B with a different panel and clerk.
• Arrange refresher training for panel members and Clerks to ensure they are aware of their responsibilities in accordance with the Code, and in particular with regards to making notes to evidence transparent and reasoned decision making.
37. The School will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

38. I find fault causing injustice. The School will complete the above actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman