Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to be able to question the panel’s decision.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her son (Y). Mrs X questions if the panel properly considered her appeal and says a complaint she sent after the appeal was not mentioned in the panel’s decision letter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an independent school admissions appeals panel’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider if there was fault in the way the decision was reached. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Mrs X applied for her child (Y) to start reception at her preferred school (School Z). Because there were more applications than places available, the Council used the school’s oversubscription criteria to decide which children it would offer a place. The Council did not offer Y a place at School Z and offered an alternative. Mrs X appealed the decision not to offer Y a place at School Z.

The appeals process

6. Independent school admission appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. The law says the size of an infant class must not be more than 30 pupils per teacher. There are only limited circumstances in which more than 30 children can be admitted. There are special rules governing appeals for reception and years 1 and 2, where admitting another child would mean there would be more than 30 pupils per teacher. Appeals under these rules are known as “infant class size appeals”. Infant class size legislation applied to the appeal which is the subject of this complaint.
7. The rules say the panel must consider whether:
• admitting another child would breach the class size limit;
• the admission arrangements comply with the law;
• the admission arrangements were properly applied to the case;
• the decision to refuse a place was one which a reasonable authority would have made in the circumstances.
8. What is ‘unreasonable’ is a high test, and for it to be met, the panel would need to be sure the decision to refuse a place was “perverse” or “outrageous”. For that reason, panels rarely find an admission authority’s decision to be unreasonable.

Mrs X’s Appeal

9. Mrs X attended the appeal with Y’s father. The clerk’s notes show School Z’s representative presented their case. They explained why School Z had not offered Y a place. School Z had reached its Published Admission Number of 30. Offering a further place would breach the infant class size limit. They explained Mrs X’s address was outside of School Z’s catchment area. Even if the Council considered the address to be in the catchment area, it would not have offered Y a place. The last student offered a place lived in the catchment area and 1.306 miles away – Mrs X lived 1.733 miles away. There was a chance for all parties to ask questions. Mrs X presented her case which included:
• She believed their home address was in the catchment area for School Z. The family only found out on 13 May this was not the case.
• The catchment area did not seem to be reasonably deigned or defined and was therefore in breach of the School Admissions Code.
• There was no guidance on the Council’s website about marginal properties where the catchment area appeared to pass through a property – as was the case here.
10. In its deliberations the panel considered information about School Z. The panel decided its admission arrangements were lawful and the Council had properly applied them. There had been no errors with the handling of Y’s application. The panel noted that even if Mrs X’s address was considered to be within School Z’s catchment area that Y would not have been offered a place due to the distance to School Z. The panel decided admitting a further child would breach the infant class size limit. The panel decided it was not an unreasonable decision to refuse admission. None of the grounds for allowing an infant class size appeal had been met and so the panel refused the appeal. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.

Assessment

11. I understand Mrs X is unhappy the appeal was unsuccessful. But we are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions which were properly taken. As previously explained, the threshold for an infant class size appeal to succeed is very high.
12. The evidence I have seen shows the appeal followed the expected process and contained the stages required by the School Admission Appeals Code (the Code). All parties had the chance to present their cases and could ask questions. The Council gave the panel the information Mrs X sent with her appeal. The clerk’s notes show the panel considered all the information it was presented with. The panel considered the required tests and decided not to uphold the appeal. This is a decision the panel was entitled to take. The clerk’s notes and the panel’s decision letter show how the panel reached its decision. It contains sufficient detail.
13. I note Mrs X is unhappy the panel’s decision letter did not mention a complaint she later sent. We would not expect it to do so. The panel’s letter is to convey the panel’s decision, not to deal with any issues subsequently raised or concerns about the appeal itself.
14. Based on the information available there is not enough evidence of fault in how the panel considered and decided the appeal for the Ombudsman to become involved. An investigation is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman