Summary: We will not investigate this complaint from a parent about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to turn down his appeal for a place for his child at his preferred primary school. This is because there is not enough sign of fault by the panel.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We do not start an investigation if, for example, we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We cannot question whether a school admission appeal 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr X submitted with his complaint and the documents the Council provided about his appeal. I also took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

5. Appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal. In particular, the law says the size of an infant class must be no more than 30 pupils per teacher, with very limited exceptions. The statutory School Admission Appeals Code also says that in infant class size appeals, the panel must consider whether:

• admitting another child would breach the infant class size limit;
• the admission arrangements comply with the law, and were properly applied to the case; and
• the decision to refuse a place was one which a reasonable authority would have made in the circumstances.

What is ‘reasonable’ is a high test. To uphold an appeal on this basis the panel would have to decide the refusal of a place was “perverse” or “outrageous”.

6. Mr X already has a child (‘Y’) at School A, which is the school nearest to the family home. He appealed after the Council refused his application for his eldest child (‘Z’) to transfer to join Y at School A. Z is in an infant year, so the infant class size rules applied to Mr X’s appeal.
7. School A’s normal admission number is 60, with year groups split into two classes of 30. At the appeal hearing the Council confirmed there were already 61 children in Z’s year group. The panel then decided that giving Z a place would mean a further breach of the infant class size limit. It also decided School A’s admission arrangements were lawful and correctly applied in Z’s case. I consider the panel had good reason to reach these decisions, based on information provided to it.
8. Mr X felt the panel had ignored the main points in his appeal case. These related to his family’s current difficulties in getting Y and Z to different schools on time and the benefits they would gain from both attending their local school. But I consider the appeal clerk’s notes from the hearing and the panel’s decision letter are good evidence the panel understood and took suitable account of what Mr X said in his appeal statement and at the hearing.
9. Ultimately it was the panel’s job to weigh up the information from both sides at the appeal and then form its own view about the opposing cases. The panel also had to apply the strict rules the law requires about the size of infant classes. In effect, the panel could only uphold Mr X’s appeal if it found the Council’s decision to refuse Z a place at School A was one no reasonable authority would have made. But I do not see we would find evidence of fault in the panel’s decision-making about this matter to justify us questioning the result of his appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the appeal panel’s decision to turn down his appeal for a place for his child at his preferred primary school. There is not enough evidence of fault by the panel to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman