Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a Council’s school admissions appeal panel’s decision as it is unlikely we would find fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X, says the Council’s schools admissions appeals panel failed to properly consider her appeal for a place at School Y.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We cannot question whether a school admissions appeals panel’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider if there was fault in the way the decision was reached. 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. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X which included the appeal papers.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and the Schools Admissions Appeals Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background events

6. Ms X applied for a place for her child, Z, to start in reception in September 2024 at School Y. It was her fourth preference on her application form.
7. More people applied than there are places. The Council applied the admission criteria. The last place went to an applicant who lived closer to School Y than Ms X. The Council allocated Z a place at Ms X’s first preference. It is closer than School Y and less than a mile from the family home.
8. Ms X appealed to the Council’s school’s admissions appeal panel.
9. Ms X’s appeal included that:
• She had made a mistake in stating School Y as their fourth preference and should have had it as her first preference. She explained the challenging personal circumstances at the time she applied and why it meant she had not stated her preferences correctly.
• They preferred School Y to the allocated school and believed it would suit Z, and the family, better.
10. The appeal panel considered the appeal under the Infant Class Size rules and rejected the appeal.
11. Ms X complained to us because she believes:
• The Appeal Panel failed to consider her health.

The appeal panel and our role

12. The School Standards and Framework Act limits the size of infant classes (a class in which most of the children will reach the age of 5, 6 or 7 during the school year) to 30 pupils a teacher. The Appeals Code refers to these as infant class size (ICS) appeals. Panels can only uphold these appeals in limited circumstances.  
13. 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; 
• the admission arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements of the School Admissions Code and Part 3 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998; 
• the admission arrangements were correctly and impartially applied in the case in question; and 
• the decision to refuse admission was one which a reasonable admission authority would have made in the circumstances of the case. 
14. 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. In limited circumstances, children can be admitted as exceptions to ICS limit. 
15. The clerk to the panel must write to the appellant, the admission authority and the council with the panel’s decision and reasons. 
16. We cannot question whether a school admissions appeals panel’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider if there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
17. The appeal panel’s notes show they actively considered if the refusal to offer a place was unreasonable. It is clear they considered all Ms X’s arguments. It is clear that even if Ms X had stated School Y as their first preference they still would not get a place at School Y. The parents’ health is not a reason for the child to be an excepted pupil for the infant class size rules.
18. It is unlikely we would find the appeal panel has not considered the right factors.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman