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. Miss X complains about the Council’s school admissions panel’s decision to refuse her appeal against the refusal of her application for a place for her son (Y). She says the school offered is not suitable for Y and she does not believe the panel properly considered the information she provided about her appeal.

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 Miss X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

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.
8. I understand Miss X disagrees with the panel’s decision but we are not an appeal body and we cannot therefore question a decision when there is no evidence of fault in the way it was made.
9. The evidence shows the panel considered all the information before it but decided the school was full, the admissions arrangements complied with the law and were properly applied and the decision to refuse Y a place was not unreasonable. The clerk’s notes record the panel’s deliberations and the reasons for refusing the appeal match the decision letter provided to Miss X.
10. While I appreciate Miss X remains unhappy that her appeal was unsuccessful, the decision was one the panel was entitled to make and I have seen no evidence of fault in the way it was reached. We cannot therefore question the decision or say the panel must reconsider her appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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