Summary: Mrs X complained how the independent appeal panel dealt with her appeal for a school place for her son. We find some fault in the clerk’s notes about the stage one process. This did not cause Mrs X a significant injustice. However, the Council has agreed to our recommendation to implement a service improvement to prevent a recurrence of the fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained how the independent appeal panel dealt with her appeal for a school place for her son (Z). She says the panel did not fully consider the points she raised during the hearing. She also says her evidence was not included in the appeal file.
2. Mrs X says the matter has caused distress and upset.

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 X and Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs X and the Council 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

Legal and administrative background

7. 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.
8. Parents/carers have the right to appeal an admission authority’s decision not to offer their child a school place.
9. Section 2.14 of the School Admission Appeals Code states that panels must not allow representatives of schools to support individual appeals for places at their school at the hearing itself, or by providing letters of support for appellants. Such support could create conflicts of interest and unfairness to other appellants.
10. Appeals must be held in private and conducted in the presence of all panel members and parties. The admission authority must provide a presenting officer at the hearing to present the decision not to admit the child and to answer questions about the school’s case.
11. Panels must follow a two-stage decision making process. 
12. Stage one: 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.  

13. 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 two of the process.
14. Stage two: balancing the arguments. The panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for the child to be admitted.
15. The clerk must take an accurate record of the hearing, including the proceedings, attendance, voting and reasons for decisions.
16. 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

17. Mrs X applied for Z to attend her preferred choice of primary school (School X). Z was already attending the nursery provision at School X. The Council allocated Z a place at another school (School Y).
18. Mrs X appealed. She said her and her partner work full-time. They rely on Z’s grandparents who live near to School X. Z’s grandparents do not have a car, and so walking is the only viable option. Mrs X said the other schools were not accessible on foot. She also said Z’s cousins attend School X.
19. Mrs X provided a letter from Z’s nursery teacher at School X. This said Z struggles with emotional regulation and social interactions. The teacher said a transition to a school other than School X would present challenges for Z.
20. The Council emailed Mrs X before the hearing. It said it could not accept the letter from Z’s teacher because of section 2.14 of the School Admission Appeals Code. It said she could provide other information for the panel to consider.
21. An independent panel considered Mrs X’s case. School X said some children in Z’s year had additional needs. It also said there was limited movement in the building.
22. The panel noted School X was over net capacity, there were smaller classes higher up in School X and there was already mixed age teaching. It decided there was prejudice to School X.
23. Mrs X then presented her case. She explained Z struggles with change and he needs stability. School X was essential for Z’s emotional wellbeing. She said Z’s teacher had provided a supporting letter.
24. A panel member asked for further information about the supporting letter from School X. The clerk explained it was rejected because of the impact on other appeals.
25. A panel member said School Y provided wrap around care. Mrs X said it would not work because her and her partner leave home before 7.30am and they do not get home until after 6pm.
26. The panel dismissed Mrs X’s case because it did not outweigh prejudice to School X.
27. The Council issued a decision letter after the hearing. The letter states the panel was satisfied the admission authority had properly implemented its own published admissions arrangements and they were compliant with the law. The letter also says the panel considered Mrs X’s reasons for choosing School X. The panel understood Mrs X’s desire for Z to attend School X with his cousins. However, it noted this could not be considered as a sibling link. The panel noted Mrs X’s concerns about wrap around care at School Y. However, it was satisfied School Y was a reasonable alternative. Mrs X’s circumstances did not outweigh the prejudice to School X.

Back to top

Analysis

28. I have considered whether the panel considered Mrs X’s appeal in line with the School Admission Appeals Code.
29. Mrs X is concerned the panel did not have access to the supporting letter from Z’s teacher. However, the Council emailed Mrs X before the hearing and explained why it could not accept the letter. This was in line with section 2.14 of the School Admission Appeals Code. I do not find fault.
30. The written statement from School X says its net capacity is 360, but it has 353 pupils. However, further on in the statement there is a table which shows the published admission number for each year group is 50, and therefore the maximum number of children should be 350.
31. I have reviewed the clerk’s notes of the hearing. A member from the panel asked whether the net capacity of School X was 350 or 360. A representative of School X confirmed it was 350. The panel therefore decided School X was over net capacity.
32. Given the available evidence, I find the reference to 360 in School X’s written statement is a typographical error, and its net capacity is 350. The panel was therefore not incorrect to say School X was over net capacity.
33. The panel decided the admission of additional children to School X would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources. However, there is no evidence from the clerk’s notes that the panel decided whether the admissions arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements set out in the School Admissions Code and the admission arrangements were applied correctly. This is central to the stage one decision making. The clerk referred to this in the decision letter, but it is not in the notes. The School Admission Appeals Code is clear the clerk must ensure an accurate record is taken of the reasons for decisions. Therefore, I consider the absence of this information in the clerk’s notes is fault.
34. Mrs X did not raise any concerns about the admissions arrangements during the appeal process. I also have not seen anything of concern, and the panel’s decision is in the decision letter. Therefore, while there is fault, it is unlikely this affected the outcome of Mrs X’s appeal. However, I have recommended a service improvement to prevent a recurrence of the fault.
35. I am satisfied the panel considered Mrs X’s reasons for wanting to be Z to be educated at School X. However, it decided her arguments did not outweigh the prejudice to School X and explained why in the decision letter. That was a decision the panel was entitled to take, even if Mrs X disagrees. I do not find fault.

Back to top

Action

36. By 13 March 2026 the Council has agreed to issue written reminders to clerks to ensure they properly record the panel’s decision at stage one of the school admissions appeals process.

Back to top

Decision

37. I have completed my investigation. The Council was at fault, but this did not cause Mrs X a significant injustice. I have however recommended a service improvement to prevent a recurrence of the fault in other cases.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman