Summary: We will not investigate Miss 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. Miss X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her son (Y). Miss X questions if the panel properly considered her case and says the decision letter wrongly referred to her child having been offered a place at another school.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the St Mary's Catholic Primary School (‘St Mary’s’ / ‘the School’).
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Miss X applied for her child (Y) to move to year 1 at St Mary’s. Because the School was already at its Published Admission Number (PAN) it refused Miss X’s application. Miss X appealed the decision not to offer Y a place.

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. Miss X attended the appeal. The clerk’s notes show the School’s representative presented their case. They explained why the School had not offered Y a place. The School’s PAN was 60 and this had been exceeded. Admitting a further child would breach the infant class size limit. There was a chance for questions.
10. Miss X presented her appeal which included the following:
• Y had previously attended the School but left after Miss X moved for work.
• Y did not like the school he had transferred to. Miss X would home educate him until she secured a place at St Mary’s.
• Miss X had now returned to the area.
11. In its deliberations the panel considered information about the School. 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 Miss 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 Miss 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.
14. In her complaint to the Ombudsman Miss X said the panel’s decision letter wrongly referred to Y having been offered a place at another school. Miss X raised this issue with the Clerk who said it was their mistake when writing the decision letter and the panel had not relied on this point. Having considered the clerk’s notes, I can confirm this issue did not influence the panel’s decision-making. The notes suggest the panel understood the situation and its decision was not based on the premise Y had been offered a place elsewhere. The papers include the following:
• “Miss X knows Y need to be in school but can’t force him into school.”
• “How long did Y spend at his previous school?...[he] left in February 2026.”
• “Whilst the panel appreciates the need for Y to be in school.”
15. While the decision letter did refer to Y being offered a place elsewhere, it does not undermine the panel’s decision making. Its decision was correctly based on the evidence provided and the very high threshold for an infant class size appeal not having been met.
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 Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman