Summary: A parent complained about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to turn down her appeal concerning a school place for her son. But we will not investigate this matter as there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel.

The complaint

The complainant, who I shall call Mrs X, complained about the admission appeal panel’s decision to reject her appeal about the refusal of a place for her son (‘Y’) at her preferred primary (‘the School’). Mrs X complained in particular that the panel ignored the arguments in her appeal case, wrongly took account of Y’s position on the waiting list and unreasonably accepted the Council’s case that an extra admission would cause prejudice to the School. Mrs X also felt the panel may have been prejudiced against her son because of his race or religion.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. 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))
2. We cannot question whether an admission appeal panel’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether 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

3. I considered the information Mrs X provided with her complaint. I also took account of documents from the Council about Mrs X’s appeal.

My assessment

4. Appeal panels must follow the law when considering an appeal for a school place. In particular the panel must consider whether:

• the admission arrangements comply with the law;
• the admission arrangements were properly applied to the child in question.

It must then consider whether admitting another child would prejudice the education of others. If the panel finds there would be prejudice it must then consider the appellant’s arguments. If the panel decides the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school, it must uphold the appeal.

5. The panel for Mrs X’s appeal decided the School’s admission arrangements were lawful and had been correctly applied in Y’s case. The panel also agreed that admitting an extra child would cause prejudice to the School and the children already going there.
6. But from the evidence provided, I do not see sign of fault in the way the panel looked at these two issues and I consider it was reasonably entitled to reach the decisions it came to, based on the information presented.
7. Mrs X questioned the Council’s case on prejudice on the basis the School was due to expand and increase its intake, it was already managing with extra numbers in other year groups, and because Y would not add to the pressures on it from dealing with so many children with additional language needs.
8. But I do not see that the panel’s decision on prejudice was necessarily flawed in these respects.
9. In particular I understand the increase in the School’s permitted admission number (PAN) from 70 to 90 will only take effect starting with the Reception year in September 2023 and will then apply to each successive Reception intake. But the panel had to take account of the School’s resources in Y’s year group for the current year. I also consider it was entitled to consider the future prejudice which would be caused as Y’s year group moves up through the School as the PAN for that group will remain at 70.
10. In addition, I do not see the panel necessarily had to accept that the admission of children over PAN in other year groups set a binding precedent for taking an extra child in Y’s year group. The panel still had to reach an independent decision about prejudice in Y’s case based on the information presented to it at the time about circumstances in his year group and in the School as a whole.
11. In that respect, I also think the Council’s reference to language needs across the School was a relevant consideration for the panel as part of its case about the wider pressures on the School’s resources.
12. Mrs X felt she had made compelling arguments for Y to be given a place at the School, despite any prejudice this would cause to it and to other pupils.
13. But ultimately it was the panel’s job to reach its own view about this matter, having weighed up the information it received from both sides at the appeal. In this regard, I consider the clerk’s notes and the panel’s decision letter are evidence the panel properly followed this balancing process, took relevant information into account, and reached a reasoned decision in Mrs X’s case.
14. In particular, I consider the clerk’s notes and decision letter indicate the panel understood and took account of Mrs X’s case in making its decision, and I see no sign that her arguments were ignored.
15. The notes and decision letter make brief reference to Y’s position on the School’s waiting list. But I do not see evidence that this matter played any significant part in the panel’s overall decision-making. I also see no evidence to support the view that the panel was prejudiced against Y.
16. In addition, from the information provided there appears no suggestion of any other fault in the appeal process. In particular I note that Mrs X was given a fair opportunity to make her case, question the School’s case, and answer the panel’s questions.

Final decision

17. We do not have reason to investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the appeal panel’s decision to turn down her appeal about the refusal of a place for her son at her preferred primary school. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the panel dealt with and decided the case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman