Summary: Mrs X complained the independent appeal panel did not properly consider her appeal of the school’s decision not to offer her child a place. There was no fault in how the panel considered the appeal.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the independent appeal panel wrongly declined to uphold her appeal of the school’s decision not to award her child a school place. Mrs X said this caused her and her child distress and frustration.

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 a panel'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 considered all the information presented to the appeal panel, the notes taken by the clerk during the appeal, the panel’s decision letter following the appeal and the School Admissions Appeals Code.
5. Mrs X and the school had an opportunity to comment on a draft decision before I made this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

6. 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. 
7. Parents and carers have the right to appeal an admission authority’s decision not to offer their child a school place.
8. A clerk supports the appeal panel. Parents can submit information in support of their appeal. Appeal panels must allow appellants the opportunity to make oral representations.  
9. Panels must follow a two-stage decision making process. 
10. At stage 1, the panel examines the decision to refuse admission. The panel must consider whether:
• the admission 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.  
11. 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. 
12. At stage 2, the panel balances the arguments. The panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for the child to be admitted. It must take account of the appellant’s reasons for expressing a preference for the school. Where the panel considers the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal.   
13. The clerk must take an accurate record of the hearing, including the proceedings, attendance, voting and reasons for decisions. 
14. The appeal panel must write to the appellant, the admission authority and the council with its decision and the reasons for it.

St John’s Catholic Comprehensive school, Admissions Policy

15. This school prioritises applications from students by placing them into categories ranging from category 1 (most priority for a place) to category 7 (least priority for a place).
16. Categories 1-3 include looked after Baptised Catholic children, Baptised Catholic children and other looked after children.
17. Categories 6-7 include children of other faiths and ‘any other child’.
18. Where applications from students exceed the number of school places available, if there is a tie break over remaining places, it will then decide between remaining applications by prioritising those students that already have siblings at the school and then after that, by how near the student is to the school.

What happened

19. Mrs X listed St John’s Catholic Comprehensive school as the first choice for a secondary school place for their child, Z, but were not offered a place.
20. Z fell under some of the lower priority categories in the school’s admissions policy. Many more students applied for places than there were places available, so the school used its criteria for deciding between the lower priority applications. Based on that criteria, another applicant was awarded the final place.
21. Mrs X appealed the school’s decision not to award their child a place. The independent appeal panel heard the case in June 2024.
22. As part of the appeal the school’s headteacher provided a statement. This said the school had been assessed as being able to safely accommodate 1,184 students but was projected to exceed this in September 2024, with 1,335 students. The headteacher said it increased its capacity at the request of the Council due to the significant pressures on school places in the area.
23. The panel considered initially whether the school’s decision was lawful, was in line with the requirements of the Admissions Code and impartially applied the admissions criteria. It decided it did.
24. At stage one, the independent appeal panel noted the school was at capacity, with the building unable to safely accommodate more students. It decided admitting another pupil would place an undue burden on staff and other students – otherwise referred to as causing “prejudice”.
25. At stage two, the panel balanced the prejudice this would cause to other students, against Mrs X’s arguments about the impact on Z of not obtaining a place at the school.
26. The panel noted among other issues:
• the impact on students in technical subject areas, where the rooms were for smaller groups and were already at capacity;
• the fact the school was already accepting a number of pupils beyond an amount considered safe for the building; and
• the fact the school’s finances did not allow for recruiting additional teachers.
27. It decided admitting any further pupils would impede on the school being able to provide efficient education and did not uphold Mrs X’s appeal.
28. Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman, as she said the decision not to award Z a place had a negative impact on them and they felt the decision was incorrect.

My findings

29. The school has provided us with copies of all clerk’s notes, panel decisions and letters to the parents. These were carried out by the panel in line with the guidance and in the way we would expect. There is no evidence of fault in how the panel recorded the appeal or communicated the decision to Mrs X.
30. Mrs X felt Z should have been offered a place. However the criteria set out in the school’s policy for deciding on remaining places was used and based on this, another pupil was awarded the final space. There is no evidence of fault in the panel’s consideration of this.
31. At stage one, the panel had to consider prejudice to the efficient education of other pupils, which it did. Then at stage two, it had to balance any prejudice to others against the impact on Z of not having a place, which it did. It explained its reasons to Mrs X. The panel made its decision in line with the Admission Appeals Code and was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation. I have found no fault by the independent appeal panel.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman