Recent statements in this category are shown below:
-
Kingsland C Of E Primary School (25 005 520)
Statement Upheld School admissions 09-Feb-2026
Summary: Mrs B complained that the School considered the wrong test in deciding to refuse her application for delayed entry for her daughter, C to start school in reception in September 2026. Based on current evidence we have found fault and have asked the School to reconsider the application using the correct test.
-
Milton Keynes Council (25 011 975)
Statement Upheld School admissions 04-Feb-2026
Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to properly consider Mrs X’s request for a school admission outside of chronological age group for her two summer born children in line with the relevant law and guidance. This caused Mrs X distress, frustration and uncertainty about her children’s education. The Council has agreed to apologise and review its decision.
-
East Sussex County Council (25 021 705)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries School admissions 30-Jan-2026
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his application for a school place. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant us investigating.
-
Statement Upheld School admissions 27-Jan-2026
Summary: Mrs X complained the appeal panel failed to properly consider her appeal. The notes from the appeal hearing and the decision letter following the appeal do not properly explain why the appeal panel reached its decisions on the various parts of the appeal. Holding a further appeal is satisfactory remedy.
-
St Bede's School, Redhill (25 003 949)
Statement Upheld School admissions 22-Jan-2026
Summary: Mr X complained the appeal panel failed to properly consider his appeal. The notes from the appeal hearing and the decision letter following the appeal do not properly explain why the appeal panel reached its decisions on the appeal. Holding a further appeal and providing refresher training to appeal panel members and clerks is satisfactory remedy.
-
Statement Upheld School admissions 21-Jan-2026
Summary: Mrs X complained about an unsuccessful appeal for her child to attend Pittville School. We find procedural fault because the clerk’s notes of the appeal hearing do not comply with the School Admission Appeals Code. They do not show how the appeal panel reached its decision, how it assessed and balanced the competing arguments, or how the panel voted. This creates uncertainty about whether the appeal was properly decided. The School has agreed to remind panels and clerks of their duty to properly record decision-making in line with the Code. We would normally also recommend that the School arrange a fresh appeal hearing with a different panel, however Mrs X has confirmed she no longer wishes to pursue a change of school.
-
London Borough of Ealing (25 023 222)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries School admissions 20-Jan-2026
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because the law prevents us from investigating complaints about admission to free schools or academies.
-
Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (25 005 388)
Statement Upheld School admissions 05-Jan-2026
Summary: Ms X complained how the independent appeal panel dealt with her appeal for a place for her daughter at her preferred secondary school. We find some fault in how the panel handled Ms X’s appeal. This means she cannot be satisfied the process was carried out fairly. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and carry out a new appeal.
-
City of Wolverhampton Council (25 003 181)
Statement Not upheld School admissions 02-Jan-2026
Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council considered a school admissions appeal for Y. We find no fault with the process the Council followed to consider Miss X’s appeal.
-
Staffordshire County Council (25 008 633)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries School admissions 17-Dec-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to be able to question its decision.