Summary: Miss X complained the independent appeal panel failed to properly consider her appeal against the School’s decision to refuse her child a place in Year 7. We found the failure to record the panel’s decision at stage 1 of proceedings on whether the admission of further children would be prejudicial, and an error in the decision letter are fault. These faults have not caused Miss X an injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the independent appeal panel failed to properly consider her appeal against the School’s decision to refuse her child a place in Year 7. Miss X said this caused her family stress and uncertainty

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the School as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Miss X and the School had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

7. Statutory guidance about school admissions and appeals is within the School Admissions Code and the School Admission Appeals Code, published by the Department for Education.
8. All schools must have a set of admission arrangements containing oversubscription criteria. The school’s admission authority uses these to decide which children will receive an offer of a place if there are more applications than places available. The school’s admission authority sets the admission arrangements.
9. A school’s admission arrangements must contain a Published Admission Number (PAN). This is the number of places the school will offer at each point of entry. The point of entry is when the school normally admits children, in this case the PAN for Year 7 was 180 pupils.
10. The appeal panel must take account of the school’s PAN and the admission authority must demonstrate prejudice over and above the fact that this number has already been reached. While not reassessing the capacity of the school, it must consider the impact on the school of admitting additional children. When reaching a decision about whether there would be prejudice, the panel must consider the following:
• What effect an additional admission would have on the school in the current and following academic years as the year group moves through the school;
• Whether any changes have been made to the school’s physical accommodation or organisation since the admission number was originally set for the relevant year group;
• The impact of the locally agreed Fair Access Protocol; and
• The impact on the organisation and size of classes, the availability of teaching staff, and the effect on children already at the school
11. Appeal panels must follow the 2-stage decision making process for this type of appeal.
12. At Stage 1 the panel examines the decision to refuse admission. The panel must consider:
• whether the admission arrangements complied with the law; and
• whether the admission arrangements were correctly and impartially applied in each case.
13. The panel must then decide whether the admission of further children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.
14. A panel must go to Stage 2 where it finds:
• the admission arrangements did comply with the law and were correctly and impartially applied; or
• the admission arrangement did not comply with the law or were incorrectly applied, but in any event the child would not have been offered a place, and that the admission of additional children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources
15. At Stage 2 the panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for admission of their child. It must take account of the appellant’s reasons for expressing a preference for the school, including what the school can offer the child the allocated or other schools cannot. Where the panel considers the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal.
16. 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.
17. The clerk must also write to the appellant, the admission authority and the council with the panel’s decision. The decision letter must give clear reasons for the panel’s decision including how, and why, any issues of fact or law were decided during the hearing.

What happened here

18. The governing body is responsible for admissions to St Francis of Assisi Catholic College. The admissions process is part of the Walsall Local Authority coordinated admissions scheme, however the School retains overall responsibility for admissions.
19. Miss X applied to the School for her child, Y to start in year 7 in September 2025. The School was oversubscribed and unable to offer Y a place because it was full with children who qualified under a higher criteria under its admission policy. Instead, the Council offered Y a place at School B.
20. Miss X appealed against the School’s decision to refuse Y a place. Miss X did not believe School B was the right school for her child. She was concerned about reports of recent incidents at School B and the Ofsted report for School B. Y suffers with anxiety and Miss X said they would not settle at School B. Miss X said they had chosen the School for its values and she would be forced to homeschool Y if they were not offered a place at the School.
21. In addition Miss X said Y’s sibling attended the School and had special educational needs (SEND). Having to transport her children to different schools would affect their education and the family routine and could cause Y’s sibling to become overstimulated and unwell.
22. The appeal took place in May 2025 in virtual hearings held by video conferencing. Miss X was unable to join by video link and joined via audio only over the telephone. The Clerk’s notes record Miss X confirmed she was happy to proceed on this basis. The panel and School representative also agreed.
23. In its written case the School said it had received almost 700 applications for places at the School and said it had never voluntarily exceeded the PAN. However as the number of applications in the borough had exceeded the available places the local authority asked all secondary schools to offer additional places to ensure every child received the offer of a school place. The School had agreed to offer an additional 19 places to meet the demand for Year 7 places.
24. The School said admitting 19 additional pupils placed additional pressure on the year group in terms of overcrowding in class rooms, reduced ability to provide personalised curriculums, and the need for additional resources which would place additional financial pressure on the school. The governing body asserted that admitting any further students would have a serious detrimental effect on the school and would be prejudicial to the provision of effective education or the efficient use of resources.
25. The Clerk’s notes for stage 1 show the School presented its case and the panel asked the School’s representative questions. Miss X also had the opportunity to ask questions of the School.
26. The notes record the panel agreed that:
• the admission arrangements (including the area’s co-ordinated admission arrangements) were complied with, and
• the admission arrangements were correctly and impartially applied to the cases in question
27. At a further hearing the panel then considered the second stage of the appeal and whether Miss X's case outweighed the school's case of prejudice. Miss X presented her case and the panel asked questions around the family’s religion; why Miss X had only applied for a place at the School; the family’s daily routine; and the nature of her other child’s SEND.
28. The panel concluded the parent’s arguments did not outweigh the prejudice that would be caused to the school and dismissed Miss Y’s appeal. The Clerk’s notes record the panel considered the School’s case was stronger as it was way over the PAN with the associated difficulties of funding and lack of space. It did not consider there was anything in the parent’s case that would outweigh the School’s case.
29. The panel also noted Y had been allocated an alternative school within a reasonable distance.
30. The Clerk wrote to Miss X advising her that her appeal was unsuccessful. The decision letter set out the panel’s consideration of the School’s case that it had already exceeded the PAN by 19 pupils. And that four of these pupils were admitted as a result of being the named school in Education Health and Care (EHC) Plans. It also noted the funding for the additional students would be ‘lagged’ which meant the School would not receive any additional funding until April 2026.
31. The letter also confirmed the panel’s consideration of Miss X’s presentation and noted her main points as:
• She had a child who currently attended the school and another who had previously attended;
• The School was a great school and had always supported her children well. She wished for Y to have the same experience.
• Y has SEND needs and suffers with anxiety
• Miss X needed her children to be at the same school to make to easier to transport them to and from school;
• Y’s allocated school was not suitable for them or their needs
• Miss X was willing to homeschool Y until they could get a place at the School.
32. It confirmed the panel had concluded Miss X’s reasons for wanting a place at the school did not outweigh the prejudice that would be caused to the delivery of education by the addition of another child.
33. Miss X remains dissatisfied and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate her concerns. She complains the decision was based in incorrect information as the decision letter refers to Y having SEND needs. This is not correct. It is Y’s sibling who already attends the School who has SEND needs. Miss X asserts this error meant Y was not given a fair chance of getting the school they need.
34. Miss X does not feel the panel properly considered the harmful effect commuting between two schools would have on her children, particularly her child with SEND needs.
35. In addition Miss X says she was disadvantaged as the video link was not working and she could only participate over the phone instead of by video. She considers this meant the appeals process was not fair or accurate and again did not give Y a fair chance of getting the school they need.

Analysis

36. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. In cases such as this, our role is to decide whether the appeal panel followed the correct procedure in making its decision.
37. Miss X complains she was only able to take part in the hearing by telephone rather than video conference. While I recognise this will have been frustrating for Miss X, I do not consider this to be fault. The School Admission Appeals Code allows for hearings to be held in person or by video conference or a mix of the two. It confirms that hearings held by telephone are only permitted where video conferencing is not possible for reasons of connectivity or accessibility. And the appellant and presenting officer both agree. The Code also states panels must allow the appellant the opportunity to make oral representations.
38. In this instance the hearing was arranged via video conferencing and Miss X was provided with links to join at both stages. There is no evidence to suggest Miss X told the clerk she would be unable to access the hearing in this way prior to the hearings. The clerks notes record that on the day Miss X was unable to join by video and confirmed she was happy to procced with audio only. The School’s presenting officer also confirmed they were happy to proceed on this basis. The records also confirm Mrs X had the opportunity to present her case and to ask questions. Miss X would have preferred to join the hearing by video link but in the circumstances I do not consider it was fault to continue via telephone.
39. The School Admission Appeals Code also states the appeal clerk must take an accurate record of the appeal hearing, including the reasons for the decisions made.
40. As set out above, at stage 1 the panel must consider whether the admission arrangements comply with admission laws and whether they have been correctly applied. The panel must then decide whether the admission of additional children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.
41. While the clerk’s notes for stage 1 record that the panel was satisfied the admission arrangements were lawful and had been correctly applied, there is no record of any consideration or decision regarding prejudice. This is fault. There should be a clear record of the panel’s stage 1 decision and reasoning.
42. The notes for stage 2 record the panel unanimously agreed to refuse the appeal as they did not consider Miss X’s case outweighed the prejudice to the School. In reaching this view the panel noted the School was already well over the PAN.
43. Simply stating the School was already over the PAN would not have been enough to show the prejudice to the School outweighed Miss X’s case for her child’s admission there. However the notes also record the panel considered the prejudice the School would experience due to the lag in funding and lack of space. The decision and reasoning are also recorded in the decision letter which also notes the panel took account of the number of additional pupils with EHC Plans, and that Y has been allocated an alternative school within a reasonable distance.
44. On balance I find no fault in relation to his decision.
45. Miss X complains the decision letter also incorrectly refers to Y having SEND needs when they do not. This is an error and amounts to fault. But I am not persuaded this error would have affected the outcome. The clerk’s notes refer to a discussion regarding Y’s sibling’s SEND needs during the hearing with the panel asking questions about the nature and management of these needs. On balance, I consider the panel was aware when making its decision that it was Y’s sibling, not Y, who had SEND needs.
46. I do not consider the errors identified have caused Miss X an injustice. I am not persuaded the decision on the appeal would have been different but for these errors.

Back to top

Decision

I find fault not causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman