Summary: Ms X complained about how a school admission appeal panel handled her appeal for a place for her son at his preferred secondary school. The panel is at fault for the way it handled the appeal and documented its decision making. This means we cannot be satisfied the process was carried out fairly. The School has agreed to apologise, arrange a fresh appeal and remind staff of the importance of recording decision making.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the appeal panel’s decision not to admit her son (Y) to Corpus Christi Catholic High School, which is his preferred secondary school. She says the panel failed to properly consider medical evidence she submitted for Y and as a result she cannot be satisfied the appeal was conducted fairly. Ms X says this has caused distress and upset for her and Y. She wants an explanation of why Y’s medical evidence was not considered.

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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

6. Statutory guidance about school admissions and appeals can be found in The School Admissions Code and School Admission Appeals Code. Both are published by the Department for Education. 
7. Parents/carers have the right to appeal an admission authority’s decision not to offer their child a school place.  
8. 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. 

Decision making process

9. Panels must follow a two-stage decision making process. 
10. 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; 
• 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.  

11. 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. 
12. 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.  
13. A clerk supports the appeal panel.
14. The clerk must take an accurate record of the hearing, including the proceedings, attendance, voting and reasons for decisions. 
15. The appeal panel must write to the appellant, the admission authority and the council with its decision and the reasons for it. The decision letter must be easy to understand and must contain a summary of relevant factors raised by parties and considered by the panel. It must also provide clear reasons for the panel’s decision.

What happened

16. Ms X applied for Y to attend his preferred secondary school (School A). However, he was allocated a place at his third choice of school (School B).
17. Ms X appealed this decision. School A is the admissions authority in this case but delegates its authority to Lancashire County Council to coordinate its admissions appeals. But it remains ultimately responsible for any appeals the Council conducts on its behalf. Ms X submitted various letters, including medical evidence, to support her case. She explained Y has health issues, had visited School A and had felt at ease and she felt this was the best choice for him. Ms X said most of his peers had been offered a place at School A and if Y were to attend School B, drop off and pick up times would be a logistical challenge due to the distance from her place of work and her inflexible shift patterns.
18. An independent appeal panel considered Ms X’s case. School A’s case was that it was already oversubscribed, and admitting further children would negatively impact the education of existing pupils, and place extra pressure on its staff and resources. The panel decided there were no compelling reasons why Y should attend School A. It said School A had proved its case.
19. The appeal panel then considered Ms X’s case at stage two. The panel noted Y would have trouble getting to and from school, and that he had formed strong relationships with his peers who would be attending School A.
20. The clerk issued a decision letter after the hearing. The letter said the panel was satisfied School A was compliant with its own published admissions arrangements. It referred to Y’s medical needs and Ms X’s concerns for his health. The letter explained the panel had empathy for Ms X and understood the reasons for her appeal but did not consider them strong enough when weighed against School A’s case. The panel found the prejudice to School A outweighed the prejudice to Y.

Back to top

Analysis

21. I have considered whether the panel considered Ms X’s appeal in line with the School Admissions Appeals Code.
22. I have reviewed the appeal documentation and can see this has listed the medical evidence Ms X submitted. However, the clerk’s notes from the stage two hearing do not refer to Y’s medical needs or indicate his medical evidence was considered in any way by the panel. The notes do show that the panel considered the logistical challenges Ms X raised, and that Y’s peers would be attending School A. The decision letter also contains more detail of the panel’s decision making in respect of the medical evidence, but this is not reflected in the clerk’s notes.
23. The clerks’ notes do not have to reflect exactly what took place, but they should detail all factors considered as part of the panel’s decision making. This did not happen in this case. I understand the panel heard more than 70 appeals that week. However, it remains essential that all evidence discussed at each stage of the appeal is accurately recorded in the clerk’s notes. As the notes do not include reference to Ms X’s medical evidence, it is not clear whether it was considered as part of the stage two appeal and so calls into question whether the appeal was considered fairly. This is fault.
24. This fault has caused Ms X an injustice with uncertainty about whether the panel properly considered her case. I have recommended remedies to address this injustice below.

Back to top

Agreed Action

25. Within one month the School has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Ms X for the uncertainty caused by the identified fault.
2. Arrange for Ms X’s appeal to be re-heard with a new panel and clerk. The appeal should be considered based on the admission figures at the time Ms X made her first appeal. This is to ensure Ms X is put back in the position she would have been in had her appeal been properly considered.
26. Within two months the School has agreed to liaise with the Council which will:
1. Issue written reminders to clerks to ensure they record the reasons for the panel’s decision at both stages of the appeals process.
27. The School should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

28. I have now completed my investigation. I find fault causing injustice for which I have recommended a remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman