Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to be able to question the panel’s decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for his daughter (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 an independent 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and St Theresa’s Catholic Primary School (the School).
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Mr X and his family moved into the School’s area and applied for their daughter (Y) to join year 1. The School’s Published Admission Number (PAN) is 30. This is the maximum number of places the school will normally offer. Because the School already had 30 children in year 1 it refused Mr X’s application. Mr X appealed the decision.

The appeals process

6. Independent school admission appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. The law says the size of an infant class must not be more than 30 pupils per teacher. There are only limited circumstances in which more than 30 children can be admitted. There are special rules governing appeals for reception and years 1 and 2, where admitting another child would mean there would be more than 30 pupils per teacher. Appeals under these rules are known as “infant class size appeals”. Infant class size legislation applied to the appeal which is the subject of this complaint.
7. The rules say the panel must consider whether:
• admitting another child would breach the class size limit;
• the admission arrangements comply with the law;
• the admission arrangements were properly applied to the case;
• the decision to refuse a place was one which a reasonable authority would have made in the circumstances.
8. What is ‘unreasonable’ is a high test, and for it to be met, the panel would need to be sure the decision to refuse a place was “perverse” or “outrageous”. For that reason, panels rarely find an admission authority’s decision to be unreasonable.

Appeal

9. Mr X and Y’s mother attended the appeal. The clerk’s notes show the School’s representative presented their case. They explained why the School had not offered Y a place. Admitting a further child would breach the infant class size limit. Mr X and the panel could ask questions.
10. Y’s parents presented their case and explained why they wanted a place at the School. Y’s mother was pregnant and had to look after Y’s siblings. The walk to the school Y had been offered a place at was difficult. Mr X worked and could not take Y to school.
11. In its deliberations the panel considered information about the School. The panel decided its admission arrangements were lawful, and it had properly applied them. There had been no errors with the handling of Y’s application. The panel decided admitting a further child would breach the infant class size limit. The panel decided it was not an unreasonable decision to refuse admission. None of the grounds for allowing an infant class size appeal had been met and so the panel refused the appeal. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.

Assessment

12. I understand Mr X is unhappy the appeal was unsuccessful. But we are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions which were properly taken. As previously explained, the threshold for an infant class size appeal to succeed is very high.
13. The evidence I have seen shows the appeal followed the expected process and contained the stages required by the School Admission Appeals Code (the Code). All parties had the chance to present their cases and could ask questions. The panel were provided with the written information Mr X sent with his appeal. The clerk’s notes show the panel considered all the information it was presented with. The panel considered the required tests and decided not to uphold the appeal. This is a decision the panel was entitled to take. The clerk’s notes and the panel’s decision letter show how the panel reached its decision.
14. Based on the information available there is not enough evidence of fault in how the panel considered and decided the appeal for the Ombudsman to become involved. An investigation is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman