Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place for her child. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about an unsuccessful infant class size appeal for her child. Mrs X says the appeal process took too long meaning when she received her appeal hearing date, there were no more spaces available at the school. Mrs X would like an explanation of why the appeal process had no impact on the waiting list for the school and why the appeal process did not save spaces for children in the appeal process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

The Appeals Process

5. The Education Act 1996 states a child reaches compulsory school age on the prescribed day following his or her fifth birthday. The prescribed days are 31 December, 31 March and 31 August.
6. The School Standards and Framework Act limits the size of infant classes (a class in which most of the children will reach the age of 5, 6 or 7 during the school year) to 30 pupils a teacher. The Appeals Code refers to these as infant class size (ICS) appeals. Panels can only uphold these appeals in limited circumstances.  
7. Admission authorities must provide parents with information on the limited circumstances in which an infant class size appeal can be upheld so they can make an informed decision about whether to submit an appeal. 
8. The Appeals Code says in an ICS appeal the panel must consider:

• whether the admission of an additional child or children would breach the infant class size limit; 
• whether the admission arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements of the School Admissions Code and Part 3 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998; 
• whether the admission arrangements were correctly and impartially applied in the case in question; and 
• whether the decision to refuse admission was one which a reasonable admission authority would have made in the circumstances of the case. 

9. What is ‘reasonable’ is a high test. The panel needs to be sure that to refuse a place was “perverse” or “outrageous”. For that reason, panels rarely find an admission authority’s decision to be unreasonable. 
10. In limited circumstances, children can be admitted as exceptions to ICS limit. These exceptions include children of compulsory school-age who move into the area outside the normal admissions round for whom there is no other available school within reasonable distance.  
11. ICS appeals also applies where admitting a further child would lead to a breach of the infant class size limit in future years.

The Appeal

12. Mrs X was invited to attend the appeal hearing and given the opportunity to present her case to the panel along with her husband. The Clerk’s notes show the Admissions Representative presented their case.
13. The panel first decided whether admitting another child into the school would breach the infants class size limit which it concluded it would. The panel took account of the School combining year group classes in Year 1 and 2 meaning that future class sizes would be breached if another child was admitted into the School at an earlier age. The panel considered the physical capacity of the School as well as its resources and concluded any further admission would have a detrimental impact on the quality of teaching and learning. I can find no evidence of fault in the way the panel considered this aspect of the appeal.
14. The panel also decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. The panel did not find the School had acted unreasonably and decided the evidence put forward in support of Mrs X’s appeal was not strong enough to allow them to uphold the appeal. The panel refused the appeal. The decision letter sets out the reasons the appeal was refused.
15. Mrs X also complains the appeal process took too long however I can find no evidence to suggest it took longer than the required timeframe set out in the relevant Code. The appeals process and the school waiting list are separate procedures to be considered independently of each other. Appeal panels must not take account of where a child is on the waitlist. Being in the appeal process has no impact on a child’s place on a waitlist. A child can still move up or down a waitlist while an appeal process is ongoing and will still maintain their waitlist place when the appeal process has finished. I can find no evidence of fault in the way in which this aspect of Mrs X’s complaint was dealt with.

Assessment

16. I understand Mrs X is unhappy her appeal was unsuccessful. We are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions when the proper process was followed and decisions were properly taken.
17. Each panel needs to reach a decision based on the information before it. The evidence I have seen shows the panel followed the proper process to consider the appeal.
18. The panel considered all the information before it and reached a decision it was entitled to. I have not seen enough evidence the panel did not properly consider the appeal to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman