Summary: Miss Y complained about the way the Council dealt with her application, and appeal, for an infant school place for her child. She also complained children’s services should have advised her to amend the application to include the category of exceptional and compelling need. We have not found fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss Y, complains about the way the Council dealt with her application, and appeal, for an infant school place for her child, Z, at their preferred school (School Q). She says:

• the appeal panel failed to consider the risk to her children of not being together at School Q and did not put their safety first when it made its decision; and
• the Council’s children’s services, with whom she was working, failed to tell her she could amend her application to include exceptional and compelling reasons for giving Z a place at School Q.

2. She wants the Council to give Z a place at School Q.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these.
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. 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

7. I spoke to Miss Y, made enquiries of the Council, and read the information Miss Y and the Council provided about the complaint.
8. I invited Miss Y and the Council to comment on my draft decision. I considered their responses before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

School admission arrangements

9. Statutory guidance about school admissions and appeals can be found in The School Admissions Code and School Admission Appeals Code published by the Department for Education. 
10. Under the system of coordinated admissions, parents make a single application for a school place to their home council. The council, as the admission authority, sets the admission arrangements.  
11. All schools must have a set of admission arrangements containing oversubscription criteria. The council uses these to decide which children will receive an offer of a place if there are more applications than places available.
12. 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. 

Appeals about school admission decisions

13. Parents/carers have the right to appeal an admission authority’s decision not to offer their child a school place.  
14. 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. 
15. 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. 
16. The clerk must take an accurate record of the hearing, including the proceedings, attendance, voting and reasons for decisions. 
17. 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. 
18. Appeal panels must allow appellants the opportunity to make oral representations.
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 clerk to the panel must write to the appellant, the admission authority and the council with the panel’s decision and reasons. 

Appeals about infant school admission decisions

21. The School Standards and Framework Act limits the size of infant classes. No more than 30 children can be taught by a single teacher in an infant class (Reception and Years 1 and 2). If this is not possible without reorganisation or employing extra staff, and this would harm the education of other pupils, infant class size rules apply to the appeal.
22. The Appeals Code refers to these as infant class size (ICS) appeals. Panels can only uphold these appeals in limited circumstances.  
23. Admission authorities must provide parents with information on these limited circumstances so they can make an informed decision about whether to submit an appeal. 
24. The Appeals Code says in an ICS appeal the panel must consider:

• whether the admission of an additional child or children would breach the infant class size limit; 
• whether the admission arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements of the School Admissions Code and Part 3 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998; 
• whether the admission arrangements were correctly and impartially applied in the case in question; and 
• whether the decision to refuse admission was one which a reasonable admission authority would have made in the circumstances of the case. 

25. What is ‘reasonable’ is a high test. The panel needs to be sure that to refuse a place was “perverse” or “outrageous”. For that reason, panels rarely find an admission authority’s decision to be unreasonable. 

The Council’s infant school admission arrangements

26. The Council published information for parents of children due to start school in September 2024. This information included guidance for parents about the process, and a contact phone number for questions or help making an application.
27. The information set out the following timescales:

• 2 October 2023: opening date for applications
• 15 January 2024: closing date for applications
• 9 February 2024: deadline for processing out of time applications
• 16 April 2024: issue of school place offers
• 15 May 2024: waiting lists established for oversubscribed schools

28. It also confirmed:
1. school places were allocated according to the published oversubscription criteria for each school so parents should study these carefully;
2. there were eight oversubscription criteria, 1 being the highest priority and 8 being the lowest and included:

• 3 – children who need a place at the school on exceptional and compelling social, psychological or medical grounds
• 6 – other children who live outside the catchment area with siblings already at the school; and
3. details of how places were allocated, using these oversubscription criteria, at School Q for the preceding September 2023.

29. With regard to an application under the oversubscription category of exceptional and compelling need to attend their preferred school, the information said:

• parents wishing to apply under this category must provide independent professional advice to support their application. This must explain clearly why it is essential for the child to attend their preferred school;
• if the evidence was not received by the application deadline of 15 January 2024 the application would not be considered under the exceptional and compelling category but against the remaining admission criteria;
• applications or evidence submitted late would only be considered in exceptional circumstances; and
• where the Council decided school admissions, the application and supporting evidence would be considered and decided by a panel of senior officers.

What happened

30. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

January to April 2024: Miss Y’s application for Z’s infant school place

31. Miss Y applied before the deadline in January 2024 for an infant school place for Z in September 2024. She named School Q, the school attended by Z’s siblings, which was outside their catchment area, as their preferred school.
32. In February, but after the 9th, the Council’s children’s services made a child protection order for Z and their siblings.
33. On 16 April 2024, the Council issued its school place offers. School Q was oversubscribed. Miss Y’s application for a place for Z was ranked as category 6 – out of area sibling. The last place available was offered to a child in category 5. Miss Y was offered a place for Z at her second preference school.

Miss Y’s appeal

34. Miss Y immediately appealed against the Council’s decision not to offer Z a place at School Q. She told the Council about the child protection order made for Z and their siblings in February and said there was now an exceptional and compelling need for Z to attend School Q with their siblings.
35. The Council considered the request, which included a letter of support from children’s services. A panel of officers decided on 7 May 2024 to put Z in oversubscription category 3, exceptional and compelling need. Z was then placed in category 3 on the waiting list for a place at School Q.
36. The Council also arranged a hearing of Miss Y’s appeal against its decision not to offer Z a place at School Q.

July 2024: The appeal hearing

37. The Council sent Miss Y an invitation to attend the appeal hearing, to be held remotely via a teams meeting. The invitation also explained the hearing procedure and the limited circumstances in which a panel could allow an infant class size appeal. It attached the appeal documents which included the Council’s and school’s statements, Miss Y’s appeal notice and supporting information.
38. Miss Y attended the hearing. The Council’s officer presented its case. Miss Y was given the opportunity to explain to the Panel why Z needed to attend the school, and to ask and answer questions. The clerk made notes of the hearing.
39. The record of the panel’s deliberation shows it considered whether the:
1. admission of an extra pupil to the school would breach the infant class size limit. It decided it would. It noted the information from School Q explaining why it could not admit an extra pupil without breaching the class size limit;
2. admission arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements. It decided they did; and
3. admission arrangements had been correctly and impartially applied in Z’s case. It decided they had. It noted that on 16 April, when the last place was allocated to a child in category 5, Z was in the lower category 6. It also noted Miss Y had not applied under the exceptional and compelling category at this point and there was no guarantee it would have made a difference to her application if she had.
40. The panel then went on to consider the final question - whether the decision to refuse admission was one which a reasonable admission authority would have made in the circumstances. It decided it was, and recorded:

• it noted the safeguarding issues and difficulties, because of the family situation, if Z was not at the same school as their siblings;
• it concluded, although it had sympathy with the circumstances, the Council’s decision on 16 April not to admit Z to School Q was not perverse in light of the information available at the time it was made; and
• its decision to refuse the appeal.

41. Following the hearing, the clerk notified Miss Y of the panel’s decision, with its reasons, in writing.

My view – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

The appeal process and panel decision

42. Our role is to consider whether an appeal has been carried out properly. We cannot question the decision if it has been properly taken or decide whether a child should be given a place at a school.
43. In my view, the appeal process and hearing were conducted properly in accordance with the Appeals Code.
44. I have also considered whether there was fault in the way the panel made its decision.
45. Miss Y says the panel did not properly consider the risk to her children’s safety by not being together at School Q.
46. But, after determining the questions set out at paragraph 39 a), b), and c), the only ground on which the panel could allow Miss Y’s appeal was if it decided the Council’s decision on 16 April not to admit Z to the school was perverse. And it had to decide this on the basis of the information the Council had about the application on 16 April.
47. In my view, the panel was precluded from taking safety issues for the children into account when deciding if the admission decision was perverse. This is because the Council had not been asked by Miss Y to consider these issues when it made its decision not to admit Z to School Q on 16 April.
48. Having concluded the Council’s admission decision on 16 April was not perverse, there were no grounds on which the panel could allow the appeal. I don’t consider there was fault by the panel in the way it made its decision to refuse Miss Y’s appeal.

The involvement of children’s services

49. Miss Y says:

• she didn’t know, in February 2024 when the child protection order was made, she could ask for Z’s school application to be placed in category 3 on the grounds there was an exceptional and compelling need for them to attend School Q with their siblings;
• children’s services let her down by not advising her about this option; and
• had Z been in category 3 as at 16 April when the Council made its admission decisions, they would have been offered the last available place at School Q.

50. I do appreciate the period from February 2024 was a very difficult time for Miss Y. But I don’t consider it was children’s services’ fault the exceptional and compelling need request was not made sooner. In reaching this view I have noted:

• clear information was provided to parents before they made their school place applications about the oversubscription procedure and categories, including the grounds for exceptional and compelling need;
• I have not seen any reference in children’s services’ records of its contact with Miss Y about her children, before 16 April, to any concerns about schools or the impact on their safety if Z and their siblings were not at the same school. Z was attending a pre-school setting in a separate location to their siblings at this stage; and
• the concern about Z not attending the same school as their siblings was not raised until 16 April, when the Council offered Z a place at their second preference school. The records indicate Miss Y then raised this with children’s services. She asked for a letter in support of her request to admissions for a place for Z at School Q, which children’s services provided.

51. Based on the evidence seen, as safety concerns about the children not being at the same school were not raised as part of children’s services’ involvement, I don’t consider it was their responsibility to advise Miss Y about Z’s school application.

Conclusion

52. Based on the evidence seen, I have not found fault by the Council regarding children’s services’ involvement with Z’s school application, the conduct of the appeal or the way the appeal panel made its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

53. I have completed my investigation. I have not found fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman