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 son (Y). Mr X says the appeal process was unfair and not truly independent, and his appeal was rejected without alternatives. Mr X wants the Panel to reconsider and offer Y a place at his 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

My assessment

5. Mr X applied for a Reception place for Y at School Z. The application was late so Y was offered a place at a different school. As Y had a sibling (O) in nursery at School Z, Mr X decided to home school Y.
6. The following year, Mr X applied for a reception place at School Z for O, and the school offered a place. He then applied for a Year 1 place at School Z for Y. School Z’s published admission number (PAN) is 120, but Year 1 already had 124 pupils, so the Council refused Y a place. Mr X appealed the decision.
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.

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.

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.

8. Mr X attended the appeal hearing online. School Z reported PAN is 120, but Year 1 has 124 pupils due to one successful appeal and three Fair Access Protocol placements. Admitting Y would breach the infant class size limit. It also said that the school faces significant pressure already due to high needs in Year 1 and that admitting more pupils would harm teaching and learning.
9. Mr X presented his case, he said home education was no longer sustainable due to work commitments, School Z was 0.2 miles away, Y had a sibling on roll, and the family would logistically be unable to drop O off at School Z and drop Y off at another school at the same time. Mr X said he did not want to move O from School Z as he believes School Z best meets O’s needs. He also questioned why Year 1 exceeds PAN.
10. The Panel considered the information and decided the admission arrangements were lawful and correctly applied. It decided that admitting Y would breach infant class size legislation. The panel acknowledged Mr X’s circumstances but noted many families face similar issues. It also noted home education was a parental choice and that an alternative school for both children was offered but declined. The panel concluded the case did not meet the legal threshold and unanimously refused the appeal.
11. I understand Mr X is unhappy the appeal was unsuccessful, but we cannot act as a further right of appeal or overturn a properly made decision. The threshold for infant class size appeals is very high.
12. The appeal followed the School Admission Appeals Code. All parties presented their cases and asked questions. The panel considered Mr X’s written and oral submissions.
13. Applying the legal test, the panel concluded that admitting Y would breach class size rules because Year 1 already exceeds PAN by four. It noted significant pressure in Year 1 and that further admissions would harm teaching and learning.
14. The Panel considered Mr X’s arguments about logistics and sibling links but did not find them exceptional or perverse. It noted that Mr X declined an alternative school for both children; that was his choice and does not show fault.
15. Mr X later alleged discrimination and lack of independence, but these issues were not raised at the hearing.
16. 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

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to be able to question the Panel’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman