Summary: Mr X complained the admission authority gave him misleading information about a letter to support his child Y’s application and about how it made its decision not to offer them a place at the School. Mr X further complained the appeal panel did not properly consider the additional evidence he provided when it decided not to uphold his appeal. There was fault in the admissions appeal panel which caused Mr X and Y uncertainty about whether their appeal was properly heard. The admission authority will apologise to Mr X and hold a new appeal hearing and provide training for its clerk and panel members.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the admission authority gave him misleading information about a letter to support his child Y’s application and about how it made its decision not to offer them a place at the School. Mr X further complained the appeal panel did not properly consider the additional evidence he provided when it decided not to uphold his appeal. Mr X said this negatively affected Y’s physical and mental health and educational needs. Mr X wanted the School to offer Y a place at the School.

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. 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)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the documents Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him on the phone.
5. I considered information from the School, including the school appeal paperwork, the clerk’s notes and the decision letters sent to Mr X.
6. Mr X and the School had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislations and policy

Co-ordinated admissions arrangements

7. Statutory guidance about school admissions and appeals can be found in The School Admissions Code and School Admission Appeals Code. Both are published by the Department for Education. 
8. Under the system of coordinated admissions, parents make a single application for a school place to their home council. This is the council the parent pays their council tax to. 
9. All schools must have a set of admission arrangements containing oversubscription criteria. The school’s admission authority uses these to decide which children will receive an offer of a place if there are more applications than places available. The school’s admission authority sets the admission arrangements.  
10. Oversubscription criteria will often be based on catchment areas. Children whose address falls inside a catchment area will normally be given higher priority for admission to the school than those living outside the catchment area. 
11. A school’s admission arrangements must also contain a Published Admission Number. This is the number of places the school will offer at each point of entry. The point of entry is when the school normally admits children. In an infant or primary school this is usually the reception year.  

Appeals

12. Parents have the right to appeal an admission authority’s decision not to offer their child a school place. Appeal hearings must be held in private and conducted in the presence of all panel members and parties. Appeal panels must act according to the principles of natural justice. 

Before the appeal

13. A clerk supports the appeal panel. Parents can submit information in support of their appeal. The clerk must send all papers required for the hearing a reasonable time before the date of the hearing. This includes information from the appellant and the admission authority. The clerk must take an accurate record of the hearing, including the proceedings, attendance, voting and reasons for decisions. 

During the appeal

14. The admission authority must provide a presenting officer at the hearing to explain the decision not to admit the child and to answer questions from the appellant and panel. 
15. Panels must follow a two-stage decision making process. 
16. Stage 1: the panel examines the decision to refuse admission. The panel must consider whether: 

• the admissions arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements set out in the School Admissions Code; 
• the admission arrangements were applied correctly; and if 
• the admission of additional children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.  

17. If a panel decides that admitting further children would “prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources” they move to the second stage of the process. 
18. Stage 2: balancing the arguments. The panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for the child to be admitted.  
19. Appeal panels must either uphold or dismiss an appeal and must not uphold an appeal subject to any conditions. Appeals must be decided by a simple majority of votes cast. A panel’s decision that a child shall be admitted to a school is binding on the admission authority concerned.
20. The Code states the clerk ‘must’ ensure an accurate record is taken of the points raised at the hearing including reasons for decision.

After the appeal

21. The clerk to the panel ‘must’ communicate the decision of each appeal including the reasons for that decision in writing to appellant, the admission authority, and the council. The decision letter must give clear reasons for the panel’s decision including how, and why, any issues of fact or law were decided during the hearing. 
22. The Ombudsman can consider complaints about school admission appeals for some, but not all schools. We do not act as another appeal and we cannot question decision if the admission authority for the school or the independent panel made them properly.

Redruth school’s published admission arrangements

23. Redruth School (the School) is a foundation school and therefore, its governing body is the admissions authority. Cornwall Council (the Council) oversees administration of the admissions; however the School retains overall responsibility for them.
24. The School’s published admission number for the relevant year was 270. It could admit up to 297 pupils as a maximum if there were more applications than places.
25. The school’s admissions policy said it would admit children with Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans that name the School. After that it would prioritise applications in the following order:
• children who are, or who have been in care (care experienced);
• children who live within the catchment area;
• children with an equivocal professional recommendation from a doctor, school medical officer, education psychologist or education welfare officer that non-placement at the School would not be in the best interest of the child;
• Children with siblings who will still be attending the School at the time of their admission;
• Children on roll of a ‘feeder’ primary school; then
• All other children.
26. The admission policy states it will only consider children under the criteria of an unequivocal professional recommendation if the parent can demonstrate that only that school can meet the exceptional medical or social needs of the child, supported by a professional in writing. The letter must give full reasons of why the professional considered the child must attend the School and the admission authority will make the final decision on whether or not to accept an application under that criteria. Unequivocal means the letter would leave no doubt the child should attend the School.

What happened

27. Mr X applied to the School for a place for his daughter Y to start year 7 in September 2024. Mr X said Y suffered from a mental and physical health problem that was made worse by stress and anxiety. Mr X said the idea of going to any other school than the School was causing Y anxiety, and the School could offer mental health support and activities to support Y’s anxiety.
28. Mr X sent a supporting letter from a medical professional to the Council in January 2024. Mr X said the letter supported the application as a place at the School was important for Y’s physical and mental wellbeing. The letter did not refer to the School but stated it was important Y attended a school where there was enhanced mental health support.
29. The Council wrote to Mr X in March 2024 and offered Y a place at school B, which was Y’s second choice. It said the year group at the School was full. It told Mr X he could appeal to an independent panel for a place at the School.
30. The Council told Mr X there had been 376 first choice applications for the School. It said it admitted 278 pupils who either lived in the catchment area, were care experienced or who had EHC Plans, and 28 children with siblings attending the School. It said it did not admit any children with an unequivocal professional recommendation. It said Y was not offered a place as she was ranked under the distance criteria only as the medical letter provided did not mention the School by name and so was not an unequivocal recommendation that Y must attend there.
31. Mr X asked why the Council had not contacted the medical professional when it considered the letter. Mr X asked the Council to reconsider the application outside the appeals process as it had not been fairly assessed.
32. Mr X appealed against the decision to refuse Y a place. Mr X provided an updated medical letter that said the impact on Y’s mental health and physical condition would be supported by being with her friends at the School. Mr X provided supporting evidence about the impact of not attending the School with their friends on Y. Mr X explained how he felt Y’s social and medical needs could be met by the School.
33. The appeal took place in May 2024 and Mr X attended in person. As there were many appeals the School’s case was presented at the beginning of the week. The school said its published admissions number was 270 for a year, its operational capacity was 297 and it had accepted 306. There is no record of why the School did not admit any further pupils, or what the impact would have been. Panel members and parents were invited to ask questions which the School responded to.
34. At stage one the clerk’s notes show that after the questions and answers all panel members agreed to move to stage two. It did not record how the panel considered the admissions arrangements or if they had been applied correctly.
35. At stage two the clerk’s notes recorded Mr X presented his case that the School was the only school that could meet Y’s medical and social needs. Mr X had provided a medical letter which now referred to the School by name, a video statement from Y, photographic evidence of Y’s health condition, medical referral letters and supporting letters from Y’s primary school and extracurricular activity providers. Mr X stated the admission authority had not contacted him about the medical letter when it decided it was insufficient as an unequivocal professional recommendation. Mr X explained a placement for Y away from her friends (who were all attending the School) would be detrimental to her health and CAMHS had indicated it would be traumatic for her, which would exacerbate her physical and mental health symptoms.
36. The clerk’s notes of the panel’s consideration of the appeal was that it did not consider the medical letter to be ‘unequivocal’. It decided a place should not be offered to Y and did not uphold the appeal.
37. The Council wrote to Mr X the following day and said the case from the School was that to admit another child to the year group would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources. It set out the matters the panel considered which included the impact on teaching, accommodation, space in and outside the School. It said it considered the admission arrangements complied with the law and had been correctly and impartially applied. It said it had considered Mr X’s argument of why Y should be admitted including Y’s educational needs, medical evidence and social reasons and decided Mr X’s appeal did not override the prejudice to the school should another child be admitted.

My findings

38. Mr X provided a medical letter of support with his original application. The Council considered the letter and decided it was not an ‘unequivocal professional recommendation’. There was no duty on the Council, or the School to make any further enquiries in relation to any of the supporting evidence Mr X provided. The decision about whether to accept an application under the ‘unequivocal professional recommendation’ lies with the admissions authority. The Council told Mr X why it did not consider the letter to be ‘unequivocal’. There was no fault in those actions.
39. Mr X appealed the decision and provided his argument and supporting evidence. The appeal panel’s consideration of Mr X’s case was flawed at stage one for the following reasons:
• there is no record of how the panel considered whether the admissions arrangements complied with the admissions code;
• there is no record of how the panel considered whether the admissions arrangements were applied correctly; and
• there is no record of the School’s case, and the panel’s consideration that the admission of additional children would prejudice the provision education or the efficient use of resources.
40. Although the outcome letter refers to the panel considering those points there was no detail and no explanation of how the decision had been made. That was fault and leaves uncertainty for Mr X and Y about whether those matters were properly considered and the appeal result can be relied on. Without establishing stage one of the appeal process had been met, the panel should not have moved to stage two.
41. At stage two the panel should have balanced Mr X’s argument that Y should be admitted against the prejudice to the School of admitting Y. Mr X provided a detailed appeal with the reasons and supporting evidence of why the School should admit Y. The records show the panel considered the medical letter and decided it was not an ‘unequivocal professional recommendation’ and so did not uphold the appeal. It did not explain how or why it made that decision. That was fault and leaves uncertainty.
42. The status of the medical letter was not the only matter to consider. The panel should have considered Mr X’s detailed argument and supporting evidence and decided whether it outweighed the School’s case. Although the outcome letter stated Mr X ‘s argument did not outweigh the prejudice to the School there is no evidence of how the panel balanced the two cases and made its decision. That was fault and leaves uncertainty for Mr X and Y about whether the matter was properly considered.
43. I cannot say, even on a balance of probabilities, what the outcome would have been but for the faults. Therefore I cannot say that Y was caused any further injustice beyond uncertainty. However, given Y’s mental and physical health conditions are exacerbated by stress the uncertainty has had a detrimental impact on her.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. Within one month of this decision the School will:
• write to Mr X and apologise for the uncertainty and distress caused to him and Y by its faults. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The School will consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended;
• hold a fresh appeal hearing with a new clerk and panel and consider stage one and stage two of the appeal in line with the guidance. If the appeal is upheld the School will offer Y a place; and
• provide training for panel members and clerks to ensure they are aware of their responsibilities in accordance with the Appeal Code of Practice.
45. The School will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

46. I have completed my investigation. I found fault causing injustice the School has agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice and avoid the same fault occurring in the future.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman