Summary: We will not investigate Mr 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. Mr X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for his daughter (Y). Mr X questions if the panel properly considered his case.

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 St Vincent’s RC Primary School (‘St Vincent’s’ / ‘the School’).
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Mr X applied for his child (Y) to start reception at St Vincent’s. Because there were more applications than places available, the School used its oversubscription criteria to decide which children it would offer a place. St Vincent's did not offer Y a place and Mr X appealed the School’s decision.

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.

Appeal

9. Mr X and Y’s mother attended the appeal. The clerk’s notes show the School’s representative presented their case. They explained why St Vincent’s had not offered Y a place. The School’s Published Admission Number was 60 and this had been reached. Admitting a further child would breach the infant class size limit. Parents and the panel could ask questions.
10. Y’s parents presented their case which included:
• Y had an eye condition which had flared up in March and she had received medical attention in April when places were offered.
• The eye condition required drops. Y needed to say when symptoms were developing. Because she already attended the nursery at the School, she was comfortable talking to staff.
• Y only allowed her parents to apply the drops and St Vincent’s was the only school both parents could easily access.
• Y’s friends would be attending the School.
11. In its deliberations the panel considered information about St Vincent’s. The panel decided its admission arrangements were lawful and they had been properly applied. There had been no errors with the handling of Y’s application. The panel decided admitting a further child would breach the infant class size limit. The panel decided it was not an unreasonable decision for the School to refuse admission based on the evidence it had available at the time. 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

12. I understand Mr X is unhappy the appeal was unsuccessful. But we are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions which were properly taken.
13. 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 panel had access to the information Mr X sent with his 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.
14. As previously explained, the threshold for an infant class size appeal to succeed is very high. The panel needed to consider if the School’s decision to refuse admission was an unreasonable one given the information it had access to. It decided this test had not been met.
15. 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.
16. Parents can only make one application per school, per academic year, unless there is a significant or material change in circumstances. If Mr X feels Y’s medical diagnosis meets this test, then he can ask the School to consider a fresh application. If it decided to do so but refused to offer a place, there would be a fresh right of appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman