Summary: Mrs F complains about the way the school admissions appeal hearing was conducted following Whitley Bay High School’s decision to refuse admission to her child. 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 arrange 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 F 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 to admit her child, E. In particular, she says the panel did not properly consider the impact on E’s mental health and the significant home to school distance of the alternative school place offered.
2. Mrs F says that fault in the process meant that E 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 F, WBHS and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs F 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. 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 says that 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.  
13. Appeal panels must allow appellants the opportunity to make oral representations
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 to consider 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. Mrs F has a child, who I will call E. At the time of the matters complained about, E was in Year 8 at a Middle School and due to transfer to Year 9 in a High School from September 2025. Mrs F submitted an on-time application for E’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 F on 3 March 2025 to confirm the decision to refuse a place at WBHS for E. The letter said WBHS had received more applications than places available and therefore applied the oversubscription criteria. E’s home to school distance was 2.140 miles and the last applicant offered in the distance category was 1.090 miles. The letter provided Mrs F with a right of appeal.
19. Mrs F submitted an appeal. In her appeal form she explained that E would benefit from a place at WBHS because of their mental health. She said that E’s older sibling experienced bullying and physical assault when at their previous school before moving to WBHS. This affected E. Mrs F explained the school offered to E is a considerable distance at over five miles away and E cannot get there by public transport.
20. In support of her appeal, Mrs F also included two letters: one from the head of E’s current school and one from their family doctor. The doctor explained the anxiety and trauma which E has suffered in recent years and that E now receives regular counselling.
21. The appeal hearing went ahead in June 2025. At stage one of the hearing, WBHS explained that E’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, Mrs F left the room, and the panel made a decision about prejudice.
23. We do not have a copy of the clerk’s notes of the stage one decision making however we do know from the decision letter that the panel decided: “… the admission of another child would prejudice the provision of efficient education and the efficient use of resources, and the admission arrangements were lawful and had been correctly and impartially applied”.
24. Mrs F presented her case at stage two. In summary, she said:
• E receives counselling due to the trauma and anxiety they have experienced
• E is scared to leave the house due to the serious assault on their sibling
• Separating E from their friends at WBHS is very detrimental
• The allocated school is ten miles from home, and it is logistically impossible to get E there independently. E’s sibling was attacked on public transport, and E has lost all confidence when travelling.
25. After Mrs F 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 [E’s] situation and the issues the family have gone through; however they feel [their] needs do not outweigh the needs of the large numbers of students already admitted and will be rejecting the appeal”

26. The clerk wrote to Mrs F to confirm the panel’s decision not to allow the appeal for E.
27. Mrs F complained to the Ombudsman because she felt the panel had not properly considered the arguments she made in support of E’s case.

Was there fault causing injustice to Mrs F and E?

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. Paragraph 3.8 of the Code says: “The panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for the child to be admitted to the school. It must take into account the appellant’s reasons for expressing a preference for the school, including what that school can offer the child that the allocated or other schools cannot. If the panel considers that the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal”.
30. The clerk’s notes do not demonstrate how the panel considered the arguments presented by Mrs F about why the school allocated to E cannot, in her view, meet E’s needs. In particular, there is no evidence to show how the panel considered the supporting letters or the appropriateness of the five-mile home to school distance of the allocated school and how E would travel there. Due to the poor-quality notes made at stage two, it is not possible to know whether the panel gave robust and independent consideration at the “balancing” stage of E’s case.
31. Additionally, the stage two notes do not record the voting at the end of the hearing. This is procedural fault and is not compliant with Paragraph 2.26 of the Code which says that appeals must be decided by a simple majority of votes cast.
32. 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 E’s case. This has created uncertainty which WBHS will remedy with a fresh appeal.

Back to top

Action

33. Within four weeks of our final decision, WBHS has agreed to:
• Offer a fresh in-person appeal for E with a new 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.
34. The School will provide us with evidence it has complied with the agreed actions.

Back to top

Decision

35. I find fault causing injustice. The School will remedy the injustice with the actions listed in the section above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman