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

The complaint

1. Miss X, says the Council’s schools admissions Appeal 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 Miss 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. Miss X applied for a place for her child, Z, to start in reception in September 2024 at School Y.
7. More people applied than there are places. The Council applied the admission criteria and policy. The last place went to someone who lived much closer to School Y. There are four schools closer to Miss X’s home than School Y, but she chose not to state those on her school application form.
8. The Council allocated Z a place at Miss X’s second preference school. This is over three miles from her home.
9. Miss X appealed to the Council’s school’s admissions appeal panel. Miss X’s appeal included that:
• They could not logistically get Z to the allocated school and both parents work full time.
• Their help with school runs was all around School Y’s area.
• They believed there would be financial implications of attending the allocated school.
• They wanted Z at School Y as they believed it was best for their wellbeing.
10. The appeal panel considered the appeal under the Infant Class Size rules and rejected the appeal.
11. Miss X complained to us because she believes:
• The Appeal Panel has not based its decision on an accurate understanding of the pressures they face should Z have to attend the allocated school.
• The decision letter only set out one reason for the decision.
• The appeal panel could have based its decision on their financial health and well being and not logistics.

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 Miss X’s arguments. There are other schools with places, closer to Miss X’s home than the allocated school. Z does not have to attend the allocated school. Whilst the financial issues and wellbeing issues they anticipate from not getting a place at School Y are important to Miss X and her family, they are not a reason the Appeal Panel can override the infant class size rules. The decision letter set out four points she had argued, not one. Its description of the decision it reached meets the Schools Admissions Appeal Code.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman