Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s school admissions panel’s decision to refuse his appeal against the refusal of his application for a place for his son (Y). He says the school offered is not suitable for Y and he is unable to transport him there. He says he and his wife are both disabled and the Council has failed to make reasonable adjustments for their disabilities, as required under the Equality Act 2010.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Infant class size appeals

5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.

Y’s case

8. The information I have seen shows Mr X made his appeal on the grounds the Council’s decision to refuse Y a place at his preferred school was one which no reasonable admissions authority could have made. In support of his appeal Mr X explained Y had experienced significant changes over the past few years and that moving to the school with several of his existing class-mates would provide the emotional stability and support he needs. He provided a supporting letter from Y’s nursery and explained he has two neurodivergent children, that he and his wife are both disabled and that only he drives, so the children’s schools needs to be close for practical reasons.

Conclusion

9. I understand Mr X is unhappy the appeal was unsuccessful but we are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions which were properly taken.
10. The evidence I have seen shows the appeal followed the expected process and the panel considered all relevant issues 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 Mr X sent with his 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 and these documents contain sufficient detail.
11. I note Mr X’s claim that the panel failed to make reasonable adjustments for his disabilities and those of his wife but it is clear from the evidence I have seen that the panel took account of their disabilities and any claim that it should have made reasonable adjustments but failed to do so, which is essentially a claim of discrimination, is a matter for the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the appeal panel.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman