Summary: Mr X complained the appeal panel failed to properly consider his appeal. The notes from the appeal hearing and the decision letter following the appeal do not properly explain why the appeal panel reached its decisions on the appeal. Holding a further appeal and providing refresher training to appeal panel members and clerks is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complained the appeal panel failed to properly consider his appeal as it:
• failed to ensure the admissions authority had applied the admission criteria fairly;
• accepted the school’s reasoning on prejudice without evidence;
• failed to consider whether the school could admit another pupil; and
• failed to consider his representations properly.
2. Mr X also complains his stage 1 hearing was limited as he was admitted late and because he received the decision letter following the appeal on the next working day it suggests his case was not properly considered.
3. Mr X says the failures have left him disappointed and concerned unfairness in the process may have denied his son a place at the school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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

7. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr X's comments;
• made enquiries of the school and considered the comments and documents the clerk provided.
8. Mr X and the organisation 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

What should have happened

School admissions and oversubscription

9. 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.
10. Admission authorities must allocate places on the basis of their determined admission arrangements only. A decision to offer or refuse admission must not be made by one individual in an admission authority. Where the school is its own admission authority the whole governing body, or an admissions committee established by the governing body, must make such decisions. The admission authority must keep a clear record of any decisions on applications, including in-year applications.

School admission appeals

11. 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'.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Multiple appeals are when a number of appeals have been received in relation to the same school. Admission authorities must take all reasonable steps to ensure that multiple appeals for a school are heard by one panel with the same members. Where more than one panel has to consider appeals for the same school, each panel must make its own decision independently. A panel hearing multiple appeals must not make decisions on any of those appeals until all the appeals have been heard.
15. Multiple appeals may be heard either individually or in groups. Hearing multiple appeals individually means holding a series of consecutive appeal hearings. The panel must ensure that the presenting officer does not produce new evidence in later appeals that was not presented in earlier appeals as this would mean that appellants whose cases were heard earlier in the process would not have the opportunity to consider and respond to the new evidence. If material new evidence comes to light during the questioning of the presenting officer, the clerk must ensure that the panel considers what bearing that evidence may have on all appeals.
16. When multiple appeals are grouped, the presenting officer’s case is usually heard in the presence (either in person or remotely) of all the appellants at the beginning of the hearing (or sometimes at the start of each day when a hearing runs over a number of days). The appellants’ cases are then heard individually without the presence of other appellants. Where there are a large number of appeals, holding grouped multiple appeal offers efficiencies.
17. Appeal panels must allow appellants the opportunity to make oral representations. Panels must follow a two-stage decision making process:
18. 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;
• if 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.
19. If a panel decides 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.
20. 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.
21. Paragraph 2.28 of the code says the panel must ensure that the decision is easily comprehensible so that the parties can understand the basis on which the decision was made. The decision letter must contain a summary of relevant factors that were raised by the parties and considered by the panel. It must also give clear reasons for the panel’s decision, including how, and why, any issues of fact or law were decided by the panel during the hearing.
22. 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.
23. After the hearing, the clerk must write to the appellant, the admission authority and the council with the panel's decision and its reasons.

The school’s admissions policy

24. The schools published admissions number is 330 pupils for year 7. The policy sets four categories for admission:
• Category A which is for foundation places for pupils whose parent/carer is a member of an Anglican church. There are 135 places offered in category A and it sets out 10 criteria in order of priority.
• Category B which is for foundation places for pupils whose parent/carer is a member of the Catholic Church. There are 135 places offered in category B and it sets out 10 criteria in order of priority.
• Category C which is for foundation places for pupils whose parent/carer is a member of a Christian church which is a member of Churches Together in England, a local Churches Together organisation or the Evangelical Alliance. There are 50 places offered in category C and it sets out 10 criteria in order of priority.
• Category D which is for open places to be offered to pupils who do not qualify for a foundation place. There are 10 places offered in category D and it sets out six criteria in order of priority.
25. If there are fewer than 135 qualified applicants for Church of England foundation places any unfilled places become additional Catholic Church foundation places. If there are fewer than 135 qualified applicants for catholic foundation places any unfilled places become additional Church of England foundation places.
26. If there are fewer than 50 qualified applicants for free churches foundation places any unfilled places will become additional Church of England or catholic foundation places (split equally).
27. Unsuccessful qualified applicants for Church of England, catholic and free churches foundation places will be considered for open places along with other applicants for open places as part of the normal allocation procedure for open places.
28. If two or more applicants have an equal right to a foundation or open place under any of the oversubscription criteria and there are insufficient places the governing board will use distance from the school, in the first instance, to decide between applicants.

What happened

29. Mr X applied for a place in year 7 at the school for his son. Mr X applied under category C. Mr X did not get a place for his son at the school because he lived further away from the school than the last child admitted under category C.
30. Mr X appealed. Mr X raised concerns in his appeal about the school allocating more places to category A, B and D applicants compared to category C. Mr X said his son’s faith extended beyond regular church attendance, that his son was a regular worshipper at a Christian church within the catchment area for the school and that his strong religious background and commitment to Christian values made him an ideal candidate for a place at the school. Mr X explained his eldest child had attended the school and benefited from its outstanding education and faith centred approach. Mr X said he believed not admitting his son to the school would have a significant negative impact on his son’s development and, in particular, his spiritual growth and social and emotional well-being as his son had already built relationships with peers who planned to attend the school.
31. The school received 30 appeals and held the stage 1 hearing on 22 May 2025 and stage 2 on 23 May 2025. The clerk wrote to Mr X on 26 May to explain his appeal had been unsuccessful.

Analysis

32. Mr X says the appeal panel failed to consider his appeal properly. Mr X says he raised concerns about whether the admissions authority had applied the admission criteria fairly and the appeal panel failed to properly consider that. Mr X also says the appeal panel accepted the school’s case on prejudice without questioning it and therefore failed to consider whether the school could admit another pupil. Mr X also says the appeal panel failed to consider his representations as the decision letter following the appeal did not explain the panel’s reasoning.
33. For how the admissions authority had applied the admissions criteria, Mr X said the admissions authority had awarded more than 270 places for applicants for the Church of England and Catholic Church foundation places, in breach of the admissions policy.
34. Having considered the notes from the appeal hearing there was some suggestion from the presenting officer the school had over offered in three of the four categories I refer to in paragraph 24. The presenting officer confirmed during the hearing the school did not over offer to applicants in category C as the school’s experience was that applicants in that category did not turn down places. The implication of what the presenting officer said was that the school over offered with the plan to fill only 330 places.
35. I understand Mr X’s concern about that approach given we would expect the admissions authority to award places according to the admissions policy. That would mean 135 places offered to pupils in category A, 135 places offered to pupils in category B, 50 places to pupils in category C and 10 places to pupils in category D. Then, according to the admissions policy, if there were places remaining, the school would place applicants in category D for open places, with distance as the tiebreak.
36. However, the school has provided evidence to show that although it over offered in three of the four categories the numbers admitted to the school for those categories dropped back to the numbers specified in the admissions policy. The school has also confirmed the appeal panel had seen the document which confirmed those figures before the appeal hearing. I am therefore satisfied the panel had sufficient information on which it based its decision that the admissions arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements and had been applied correctly.
37. I am concerned though about how the panel approached the first stage of the appeal hearing when it considered whether the school had made its case on prejudice. The information the school presented to the appeal panel about its difficulty admitting further pupils is limited. I am also concerned that when making a decision on that part of the appeal the appeal panel recorded only that it was satisfied the school had made its case. There is no explanation in the minutes of the meeting to show why the panel was satisfied or what they relied on in reaching that view. That is fault.
38. I am also not satisfied the appeal panel considered all the information Mr X provided in carrying out the second stage where it balanced the school’s arguments on prejudice against Mr X’s case. All that is recorded in the minutes of the meeting is that the panel did not consider Mr X’s case was strong enough to outweigh the prejudice to the school. The minutes do not record the reasons why panel reached that decision. That is fault. The decision letter following the appeal hearing also provides no further clarity around the appeal panel’s reasoning, which is also fault.
39. Overall, the notes fall short of the standard of transparency, fairness, and reasoned decision-making required by the code. I am therefore not satisfied the panel considered the evidence properly or applied the correct tests in this case. This has created uncertainty for Mr X. As remedy I recommended the school hold a fresh appeal for Mr X with a new panel and clerk. I also recommended the school arrange refresher training for panel members and clerks to ensure they know about their responsibilities under the code, particularly around making notes to evidence transparent and reasoned decision-making.
40. Mr X has concerns about how the appeal panel progressed, particularly around the difficulty he had accessing the stage 1 hearing and the limited time it took to receive the decision following the appeal.
41. I understand Mr X had difficulties accessing the stage 1 hearing and was not present for all of it as a result. I am satisfied though Mr X had already presented his questions in writing and was present for part of the hearing. I see no reason to pursue that point further given I have recommended a further appeal.
42. Mr X is also concerned about receiving the decision letter following the appeal on the next working day. Mr X suggests that means the appeal panel failed to properly consider his appeal because it is unlikely the panel continued to consider the appeals in the evening or over the intervening weekend.
43. The clerk has confirmed panel members often continue into the evening or sit over the weekend. The fact a letter was sent out quickly following the appeal is not, in itself, evidence of fault. However, as I have set out earlier in this statement, I am not satisfied the appeal panel properly considered Mr X’s appeal.

Back to top

Action

44. Within one month of my decision the school will hold a fresh appeal for Mr X with a new panel and clerk.
45. Within three months of my decision the school will arrange refresher training for panel members and clerks to ensure they know about their responsibilities under the code, particularly around making notes to evidence transparent and reasoned decision-making.
46. The school should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

47. I find fault causing injustice. The school will take action to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman