Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not conduct his child’s school admissions appeal correctly. We found fault because the appeals panel failed to adequately evidence its considerations of whether the school concerned could admit more children. This caused Mr X avoidable distress. To remedy the injustice caused by this fault, the Council has agreed to apologise and arrange a fresh appeal.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council did not correctly determine the outcome of his appeal to get his child into the school of his choice. Mr X says the panel did not give adequate consideration to the family’s exceptional circumstances or fully consider the evidence the family provided in support of its case.
2. Mr X says this caused distress and meant his child was denied a place at a school the family had links to.

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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered all the information Mr X provided and discussed this complaint with him. I have also considered information the Council sent in response to our enquiries.
6. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

School admissions and oversubscription

7. Statutory guidance about school admission appeals can be found in the School Admission Appeals Code (the Code) published by the Department for Education. 
8. 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. 
9. 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.
10. 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

11. 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 (the panel) and clerk. Appeal panels must act according to the principles of natural justice. 
12. The admission authority (in this case the Council) 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. 
13. Appeal panels must allow appellants the opportunity to make oral representations. 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.  
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:
• Stage 2: balancing 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. Mr X has a child, Y, who was due to start primary school in September 2025. At the beginning of 2025, the family applied to the Council for Y’s Reception class place. The family chose five schools and ranked them in preferred order. School A was the family’s first choice. They chose School A as the family and Y already had strong links with it. School B was also on their list but third in preference.
18. A letter from the Council then offered Y a place at School B. It explained this was because School A had either reached or gone over its PAN. The Council asked the family to respond to the offer by 23 April. The family accepted the place at School B.
19. On 14 May, the Council sent the family a letter explaining its appeal rights. This advised any appeals about Y’s school place needed to be registered by 23 May.
20. The family sent its appeal paperwork on 20 May and a hearing was arranged for 1 July. An independent panel (the panel) would hear evidence from the Council and Mr X.
21. In June, Mr X sent supporting evidence to explain why the family felt Y should be offered a place. This outlined Y’s links with School A and the family’s circumstances which he felt were exceptional and the panel should consider.
22. The Council also prepared documentation to explain why School A could not admit Y as a pupil. Amongst other things, this explained:
• the numbers and make up of children who had been given places at School A;
• its PAN for the academic year 2025-26 in its Reception class was 25 pupils;
• the Reception classroom was adequately sized for 26 pupils;
• the PAN was adequate to meet local demand alongside other local schools;
• that School B was significantly closer to the family home than School A and was significantly under PAN; and
• admitting Y to School A would prejudice the efficient education or the efficient use of resources at the school.
23. The Council and Mr X attended the admissions panel appeal in July. The panel considered the evidence presented at stage one of the appeal. It decided that admitting additional children would prejudice the efficient education or efficient use of resources and moved onto the balancing of the arguments at stage two.
24. For stage two, the panel considered the evidence presented by both parties. It commented it could not reassess the capacity of the school. It noted the Reception classroom was suitable for 26 children, the PAN had been reached and there were no compelling reasons to admit Y. It refused the family’s appeal.
25. The Council confirmed this decision in writing and shared it with the family a few days after the appeal.
26. Y started at School B in September 2025.

Analysis

27. 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 someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
28. I have viewed both the handwritten meeting notes made by the panel clerk and the typed version. Both versions note the classroom space could accommodate 26 children. Both versions note School A’s PAN is 25 children.
29. However, neither version shows any discussion or consideration by the panel either at stage one or two of the classroom space being able to accommodate 26 pupils set against the PAN of 25. There is therefore no evidence of consideration of whether School A could admit more than 25 pupils. Instead, the panel accepts School A was at PAN which was lower than the number of pupils it had physical capacity for and continues its discussions without investigating this further.
30. I am satisfied, that in the circumstances of this complaint, the panel has not adequately demonstrated it considered whether School A could go over its PAN. Failure to do so was fault and not in line with paragraph 2.29 of the Code. This caused avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty to Mr X. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.
31. The stage two notes do not contain evidence of any recorded votes cast during the appeal hearing. This is procedural fault and is not compliant with paragraph 2.26 of the Code which states appeals must be decided by a simple majority of votes cast. I therefore consider the notes fall short of the standard of transparency, fairness and reasoned-decision making required by the Code. This was also fault. It caused avoidable uncertainty for Mr X. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults I have identified, the Council will take the following action within four weeks of the date of my final decision:
• apologise to Mr X for the identified injustice;
• if Mr X wishes, arrange a fresh appeal with a new panel and a new clerk for the hearing; and
• arrange training for panel members and clerks to ensure they are aware of their responsibilities in accordance with the Code, and in particular with regards to making notes to evidence transparent and reasoned decision making.
33. We expect the fresh appeal to be presented using the same information about the availability of places at the time Mr X made his appeal. This is to ensure he is not disadvantaged by other successful appeals decided since the original appeal, which may have increased pupil numbers at School A. We also expect the new panel to be advised of the fault identified in the first appeal.
34. The apology written should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies on making an effective apology.
35. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman