Summary: Mr X complained the appeal panel failed to properly consider his appeal. We found the notes from the appeal hearing and the decision letter did not properly explain how the appeal panel decided Mr X’s appeal. The school will hold a further appeal to address the injustice caused to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the appeal panel did not properly consider his appeal as it:
• failed to make sure it applied its admissions criteria properly; and
• failed to verify the school’s position on prejudice and that it could not admit another pupil.
2. Mr X stated the failures have left him and his daughter with a mistrust of the process and may have resulted in his daughter being denied a place at the school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the school as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr 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

8. 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.
9. 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.

The schools admissions code

10. Statutory guidance about schools admissions for maintained schools can be found in the School Admissions Code. Throughout this statement I will refer to this as the Admissions Code.
11. The Admissions Code states the admission authority for the school must set out their arrangements the criteria against which places will be allocated at the school when there are more applications than places and the order the criteria will be applied.
12. All children whose Education, Health and Care Plan names the school must be admitted.

School admission appeals

13. 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'.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Appeal panels must allow appellants the opportunity to make oral representations. Panels must follow a two-stage decision making process:
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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 Schools admissions policy

26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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).
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. The policy explains that pupils who have an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) must apply for a school place through the local authority. If a child with an EHCP is placed in the school by the local authority before the normal admission round, the number of places available to other applicants will be reduced. The governors will admit all those pupils whose EHCP names the school.

What happened

32. Mr X applied for a place in year 7 at the school for his daughter, Y. Mr X applied under category D. Y did not get a place.
33. Mr X appealed. He appealed on grounds including Y is an exceptional student and does extra-curricular activities, the school is close their home, Y’s friends are attending the school, and the family’s values align with the school’s.
34. The school said it received 526 applications for the 10 places available in category D. The school did not offer any places in category D because it offered 12 places to applicants with EHCPs
35. The school sent a frequently asked questions document to parents before the appeal hearings. The document said all 330 places were allocated.
36. The school held the stage 1 hearing on 22 May 2025 and the stage 2 hearing on 23 May 2025. At the appeal the school answered questions. It said:
• the local authority directed it to take 18 children with EHCPs.
• places in the Open category were used by children with EHCPs.
• it offered 342 places. It always over offers because there will be declines.
37. The appeal hearing notes for Mr X’s appeal state:
• the local authority asked the school to make offers over its PAN, so it did so. It said EHCP places could come from the Open category.
• it considered Y’s case but found there were no pressing reasons for her to attend the school and its case for prejudice was stronger.
38. The clerk wrote to Mr X on 26 May explaining his appeal had been unsuccessful.
39. Mr X was unhappy with the school’s handling of his appeal, and he complained to the Ombudsman. His grounds of complaint are set out in paragraph 1.
40. We asked the school to provide background documents for the appeal. It also told us it upheld five Open category appeals as those cases were strong enough to outweigh the prejudice to the school.
41. In response to our draft decision the Council provided evidence clarifying the number of pupils it admitted to the school under each of the categories in its admissions policy. It confirmed the evidence was available to the appeal panel prior to it considering appeal hearings.

Finding

42. Mr X says the panel failed to consider his appeal properly. He raised concerns about whether the school correctly applied it published admission arrangements. He said the school should have awarded places to children with EHCPs naming the school outside of the normal admission round.
43. I agree with Mr X. The school’s admissions arrangements explain that it will admit children with an EHCP naming the school first. It also explains this will reduce the number of places available to other applicants.
44. The school’s admission arrangements do not explain how it will reduce the number of places available to other applicants because of admitting children with EHCPs naming the school. The school’s admissions arrangements should explain how it will reduce the number of places available in the various categories.
45. The school has provided evidence of how many places were allocated and in which category and confirmed the appeal panel had this information before considering Mr X’s appeal hearing. I am therefore satisfied the panel had enough information to determine how places were allocated.
46. However, I have concerns about how the panel considered Mr X’s stage one appeal. The notes of the appeal state the panel was satisfied the school had made its case on prejudice, but it does not explain why or how it reach this conclusion. This is fault.
47. Similarly, the notes of the second stage appeal do not set out the reasons why the panel found Mr X’s case was not strong enough to outweigh the prejudice to the school. The minutes should explain why the panel reached its decision. I also note the decision letter to Mr X did not provide any further clarity.
48. For the reasons set out in paragraphs 46 and 47 I consider the notes do not meet standard set out in the code. This is fault. This fault causes Mr X uncertainty about how the panel considered his appeal.

Back to top

Agreed Action

49. Within one month of my final decision the school will

• hold a fresh appeal for Mr X with a new panel and clerk.
• provide a copy of this decision to the school governors so they can consider updating the school’s admissions policy so that it clarifies how the number of places in each admissions category will be reduced when admitting children with EHCPs naming the school.

50. The Ombudsman recommended service improvements as part of a previous recent investigation into a similar complaint. Therefore, I do not consider it is necessary to make service improvements as part of my investigation.
51. The school should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

52. 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