The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a school admissions appeal panel’s decision. We are unlikely to achieve a significant remedy as he has had a second successful appeal.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, says the Council should not have refused to give his child, Q, a place at School Y.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The appeal panel and our role 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.
Admission authorities must provide parents with information on the limited circumstances in which an infant class size appeal can be upheld so they can make an informed decision about whether to submit an appeal.
Where an appeal only involves one child, the panel examines the decision to refuse admission. 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.
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. These exceptions include children of compulsory school-age who move into the area outside the normal admissions round for whom there is no other available school within reasonable distance.
ICS appeals also applies where admitting a further child would lead to a breach of the infant class size limit in future years.
Events in this case and analysis Mr X says his family returned to the UK, in the summer of 2022. Mr X applied for a place at School Y in year two for Q in May 2022. The Council refused the application and said there was no place available. Mr X appealed to the Council’s school admissions appeal panel.
The appeal panel heard Mr X’s appeal in July 2022. This appeal was an infant class size appeal. The panel turned down his appeal. Mr X applied again to the Council in August for a place in year three for Q to start in September 2022. The Council refused the application and said there was no place available. Mr X appealed to the Council’s school admissions appeal panel.
The appeal panel heard his case in late September 2022. It agreed to grant Q a place at School Y.
Mr X said the first appeal panel was wrong to refuse his appeal. He says there was no place available at any school within a reasonable distance and so they should have been granted the place. Mr X also says his case should have been referred to the Fair Access Protocol procedure. He says the process has meant Q has missed school.
If our investigation was to find fault in the first appeal panel hearing, the remedy we would have obtained would have been a further appeal. Mr X has had a further appeal which has been successful. Our investigation could not achieve significantly more.
Both appeals were heard within the timescales specified by the School Admissions Appeals Code.
Mr X does not live within this Council’s area. The Council does not have a duty to provide Q with any education. Any complaint about a failure to provide an education or whether the Fair Access Protocol should have been applied is not for this Council.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we would not achieve a significantly different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman