The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and so we cannot question the panel’s decision.
The complaint
Mrs X complained about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her daughter. Mrs X raised concerns about information the Council presented.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Background
Mrs X moved into the Council’s area. She applied for a Year 2 place at her preferred school (School Z) for her daughter (Y). Because Year 2 was full, the Council refused her application. The Council offered a place at an alternative school. Mrs X appealed the decision not to offer Y a place at School Z.
The appeals process 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 Miss X’s appeal.
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.
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.
Mrs X’s appeal The clerk’s notes show the Council and Mrs X had the chance to present their cases. In her appeal, Mrs X explained why she wanted Y to attend School Z. She explained her younger child had recently started in Reception. The Council said it had not yet received confirmation of this. Mrs X explained the problems with the school the Council had offered. Mrs X said the school had told her there was a place in Year 2. The Council’s representative said there were 91 children in Year 2 – one over the school’s admission number of 90.
The panel considered information about School Z. The panel decided the admission arrangements were lawful and had been properly applied. 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 Mrs X’s appeal. The clerk’s letter explained the panel’s decision.
Assessment I understand Mrs X is unhappy her appeal was unsuccessful. But we are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions which were properly taken.
Each panel needs to reach a decision based on the information before it. The evidence I have seen shows the panel followed the proper process to consider and decide Mrs X’s appeal. The panel took into account that Mrs X’s younger child had started at School Z and why she wanted her child to attend the school.
Mrs X said there was a place in Year 2, but the Council said this was not the case. I have not seen any evidence the Council presented incorrect information.
Our role is to consider how the panel considered the appeal. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the panel decided Miss X’s appeal for the Ombudsman to become involved. The panel reached a decision it was entitled to. An investigation is not therefore appropriate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman