Summary: Mrs W complains about the way the school admissions appeal hearing was conducted following Whitley Bay High School’s decision to refuse her child a place. In our provisional view, we find procedural fault because the notes of the hearing are not compliant with the School Admissions Appeal Code. The notes do not demonstrate how the panel made its decision or provide details of the votes cast. The School should arrange a fresh appeal with a different panel and clerk and organise training to ensure that panels and clerks are aware of their duty to record decision making in line with the Code.

The complaint

1. Mrs W 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, T. In particular, she says the panel did not properly consider the impact of having to travel the significant home to school distance to the alternative school place offered.
2. Mrs W says that fault in the process meant that T did not receive a place at WBHS.

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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs W, WBHS and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs W 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

7. 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. 
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. 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

10. 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. 
11. 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. 
12. Appeal panels must allow appellants the opportunity to make oral representations.
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’. 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.  
14. 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.  
15. 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.
16. 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

17. Mrs W has a child, who I will call T. At the time of the matters complained about, T was in Year 8 at a Middle School and due to transfer to Year 9 in a High School from September 2025. Mrs W submitted an on-time application for T’s school place. This was during the normal transfer round (for Middle to High School) which had a closing date of 31 October 2024.
18. North Tyneside Council (‘the Council’) wrote to Mrs W on 3 March 2025 to confirm the decision to refuse a place at WBHS for T. WBHS had received more applications than places available and therefore applied the oversubscription criteria. T’s home to school distance was further than the last applicant offered in the distance category (1.090 miles). The letter gave Mrs W a right of appeal.
19. Mrs W submitted an appeal. In support of her appeal, Mrs W included a letter from their GP which described the distress and anxiety T was experiencing because of being refused a place at WBHS.
20. The appeal hearing went ahead in June 2025. At stage one of the hearing, WBHS explained that T’s year group had already exceeded the PAN because of the school’s agreement to admit an extra 20 children following the closure of a local High School. WBHS explained that, in its view, there was no capacity to admit any additional children.
21. The panel and parents had an opportunity to ask questions about the school’s case. Once those questions concluded, Mrs W left the room, and the panel made a decision about prejudice. The clerk’s notes of the decision making say:

“During the decision making process the panel considered if the admission arrangements had been followed correctly and this was found to be the case. They also found that prejudice would be caused to the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources if additional children were admitted. Therefore the meetings moved to Stage 2 hearings”

22. The hearing proceed to stage two and Mrs W had the opportunity to present her case for T. She said T lives just a 20-minute walk from WBHS. The alternative school allocated is only accessible by two bus journeys. Mrs W said T is losing weight due to anxiety about their school place. Mrs W spoke about her work commitments and those of T’s father.
23. The clerk’s notes show the panel asked Mrs W some questions about T and the arrangements they have in place for the allocated school.
24. After Mrs W presented her case, she left the room for the panel to make their decision. The clerk’s notes of the decision making say:

“Panel are very sympathetic to [T’s] situation and the challenges they face; however they feel [their] needs do not outweigh the needs of the large numbers of students already admitted and will be rejecting the appeal”.

25. The clerk wrote to Mrs W to confirm the panel’s decision not to allow the appeal for T. The letter echoed the same points which Mrs W had raised in the hearing but confirmed, “the panel concluded that [T’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”.
26. Mrs W approached the Ombudsman because she felt WBHS acted with fault when it heard T’s appeal.

Was there fault causing injustice to Mrs W and T?

27. 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.
28. I have considered the steps WBHS took to consider T’s appeal, and the information it took account of when deciding to refuse the appeal. There is fault in the way the clerk documented the panel’s decision making. The notes fail to demonstrate the panel met its obligations under Paragraphs 2.25 to 2.27 of the Code to provide a clear and reasoned explanation of how it made its decision.
29. The summary of the panel’s stage one decision does not include any reasoning. While the notes assert 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.
30. 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.
31. Furthermore, the notes of the decision-making at stage two do not indicate that the panel considered Mrs W's argument about the allocated school being too far for T to reach using public transport. Online mapping suggests the journey by public transport is one hour, with changes. In the absence of sufficiently detailed notes, it is not possible to know whether the panel gave robust and independent consideration to T’s case, as required by the Code.
32. Additionally, the notes do not document the votes cast at the end of the appeal hearing. This is procedural fault and is not compliant with Paragraph 2.26 of the Code which states that appeals must be decided by a simple majority of votes cast.
33. 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 T’s case. This has created uncertainty which WBHS will remedy with a fresh appeal.

Back to top

Action

34. Within four weeks of our final decision, WBHS has agreed to:
• Offer a fresh in-person appeal for T 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 and votes cast.
35. The School will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

36. 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