Summary: Mr D complains about the way the school admissions appeal hearing was conducted following Whitley Bay High School’s decision to refuse his child a place. 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 will arrange a fresh appeal with a different panel and clerk and organise refresher training to ensure that panels and clerks are aware of their duty to record decision making in line with the Code.

The complaint

1. Mr D complained that Whitley Bay High School (‘WBHS’) failed to properly consider the arguments he presented during a school admissions appeal hearing against the decision to refuse a place for his child, C. In particular, he says the panel did not properly consider the impact on C’s mental health and the significant home to school distance of the alternative school place offered.
2. Mr D says that fault in the process meant that C 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 Mr D, WBHS and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr D 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. 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’.
11. 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. 
12. 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. 
13. Appeal panels must allow appellants the opportunity to make oral representations. Panels must follow 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 School Admissions 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:
• 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.  
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. Mr D has a child, who I will call C. At the time of the matters complained about, C was in Year 8 at a Middle School and due to transfer to Year 9 in a High School from September 2025. Mr D submitted an on-time application for C’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 Mr D on 3 March 2025 to confirm the decision to refuse a place at WBHS for C. The letter said WBHS had received more applications than places available and therefore applied the oversubscription criteria. C’s home to school distance was 1.954 miles and the last applicant offered in the distance category was 1.090 miles. The letter provided Mr D with a right of appeal.
19. Mr D submitted an appeal. In the appeal form he explained that C would benefit from a place at WBHS because of their health needs and sensory issues. He said the alternative school offered is unsuitable and too far away for C to get to.
20. In March 2025 Mr D and C moved to an address less than a mile from WBHS. Had the house move happened before the application deadline, C would have received a place at WBHS.
21. The appeal hearing went ahead in June 2025. At stage one of the hearing, WBHS explained that C’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.
22. The panel and parents had an opportunity to ask questions about the school’s case. Once those questions concluded, Mr D left the room, and the panel made a decision about prejudice.
23. The clerk’s notes of the stage one decision making say: “Admissions were lawful and correct and impartially applied and would cause prejudice. School has proven the case at stage 1”.
24. The appeal proceeded to stage two and Mr D presented his case. In summary, he said:
• He and C have moved house since applying for the school place and they now live less than 0.3 miles from WBHS.
• C struggles with stress, anxiety and self-harm. They are undergoing assessments relating to neurodiversity.
• The other school allocated to C is far away and a two-hour round trip every day. Mr D has therefore refused the place at the school allocated.
25. After Mr D presented his case, he left the room for the panel to make their decision. The clerk’s notes end here and there is no record of the panel’s decision making.
26. The clerk wrote to Mr D to confirm the panel’s decision not to allow the appeal for C.
27. Mr D complained to the Ombudsman because he felt the panel had not properly considered the arguments he made in support of C’s case.

Was there fault causing injustice to Mr D and C?

28. 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.
29. I have considered the steps WBHS took to consider C’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 because the notes fail to demonstrate the panel met its obligations under Paragraphs 2.25 to 2.27, to provide a clear and reasoned explanation.
30. 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.
31. 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, as required by the Code.
32. Additionally, the notes taken during stage two do not record any discussions about how the panel reached a decision in C’s case. The clerk’s notes end abruptly at the point when Mr D answered the panel’s questions about C. This is fault. Furthermore, the notes do not record the votes cast at the end of the 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 significantly 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 C’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 C 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. In particular with regards to making notes to evidence transparent and reasoned decision making when balancing a school’s case against the case presented by the appellant and recording votes cast by the panel.
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 implement the actions listed above to remedy the injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman