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. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her child (Z). Mrs X says the Council gave her incorrect advice about her application meaning she missed out on a place at her preferred school.

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 twin children (‘Y’ and ‘Z’) to start reception in September 2025 at her preferred School (School B). This complaint is about Mrs X’s application for Z. Mrs X moved address and says she contacted the Council on 14 February 2025 about this. Mrs X says the Council told her it was too late to consider her new address as the deadline of 15 January had passed. Mrs X did not therefore send proof of her new address until 04 March.
6. Because there were more applications than places available at School B the Council used its oversubscription criteria to decide which children it would offer places. The Council considered Mrs X’s application using her old address. It did not offer her children places at School B. Mrs X says she then discovered the closing date for providing proof of a change of address was 14 February and the Council had incorrectly advised her. Because of this her children had not been offered places at School B. Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision.

The appeals process

7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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

10. Mrs X attended the appeal. The clerk’s notes show School B’s representative presented their case. They explained why School B had not offered Z a place. They explained how admitting a further child would breach the infant class size limit. They did not consider it was an unreasonable decision to refuse Mrs X’s application as her children had been offered places close by.
11. Mrs X presented her case and explained why she wanted her children to attend School B. She explained to the panel how she felt the Council had given her incorrect information and this meant her children had been denied places.
12. In its deliberations the panel considered information about School B. The panel decided its admission arrangements were lawful. The panel decided it could not confirm what was discussed on 14 February. It was, however, down to parents to provide proof of address changes by the required date and this had not happened. The panel sympathised with Mrs X’s situation, but it decided there was not evidence of fault with the handling of Mrs X’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 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

13. 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.
14. 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.
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.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs 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