Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of admission to the complainant’s preferred school for her daughter. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way that Independent Appeal Panel (IAP) which re-heard the appeals made its decision.

The complaint

1. The Complainant, who I refer to here as Miss L, says that:
• Her appeal was originally incorrectly considered as an Infant Class Sizes appeal, instead of a normal prejudice appeal, putting her at a disadvantage;
• The IAP did not consider her circumstances properly; and
• She had not been made aware that the sibling link would be broken if she moved more than two miles from the School.

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 Miss L and by the School.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss L’s appeal was originally heard, incorrectly, as an appeal to which the Infant Class Sizes legislation applies. This legislation provides that infant class sizes must not exceed 30, unless either the admission arrangements were unlawful or not administered correctly, or unless the decision not to admit was unreasonable. The test for unreasonableness is very high, and this makes it unlikely that appeals can succeed. Miss L’s appeal was refused.
6. The admissions authority later found that the appeal should not have been considered on the basis of the Infant Class Sizes legislation, as there were only 2 children in the class. This had placed all appeals at a disadvantage, as the decision should have been based on the balance of prejudice to the school and the children, which is a lower threshold for appellants to reach.
7. The appeals were therefore all re-heard. Although Miss L’s complains about the previous unfair appeal hearing, the School has accepted fault and remedied the injustice through the re-hearing of the appeal. I will therefore only consider the elements of her complaint relating to this second appeal hearing.
8. Miss L says that she was unaware that the sibling link would be broken if she moved more than two miles from the School. This information is available on the School’s website and whilst I am sympathetic to the difficulty of having children at different schools, there is no fault in the IAP’s decisions that the oversubscription criteria were fairly applied in this case.
9. Miss L further says that the IAP did not consider her circumstances properly. However, the clerk’s notes of the hearing and the refusal letter show that it considered all of her points. It felt that the School’s case was stronger as it had already taken five additional children over its Planned Admission Number this year, and would struggle to make effective provision for greater numbers.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss L’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault in the way the IAP made it decision to refuse the appeal. The fault by a previous IAP has been remedied.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman