The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application and appeal for a school place for her son. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.
The complaint
The complainant, who I will refer to as Miss B, complains that the Council is at fault in refusing her application and appeal for a school place for her son.
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.
The complainant had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered her comments before making a final decision.
My assessment
Miss B applied for a primary school place for her son for entry to the Reception year group in the 2022 intake. There were more applications for the school than places available, so the Council applied its oversubscription policy. Miss B’s application was unsuccessful.
Miss B appealed against the Council’s decision. In support of her appeal, she pointed out that her son was attending the nursery class at the school. She attended the appeal hearing to make her case in person.
The school admission appeal panel refused Miss B’s appeal. She believes this decision was flawed, in that it failed to give proper weight to her grounds of appeal. She also argues that other children who live further from the school have wrongly been awarded places. She wants the Council to reconsider the matter and give her son a place at the school.
Independent 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. Appeals under these rules are known as “infant class size appeals”. 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. 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.
The Ombudsman does not question the merits of decisions properly taken. The panel is entitled to come to its own judgment about the evidence it hears.
The clerk's notes of Miss B's appeal hearing show she was able to make her case and that the panel considered it. It was for the panel to decide how much weight to give to the evidence. There is no evidence of fault in the way the panel made its decision.
Without evidence of fault, we cannot criticise the decision the panel made, or intervene to substitute an alternative view. There are therefore no grounds to investigate the complaint.
While Miss B may believe the Council wrongly awarded places to some children, she was not party to the administration of their applications. These are confidential between the Council and the applicant and Miss B does not know the grounds on which the Council awarded places. If she has evidence of fraudulent activity in specific cases, she may report it to the Council. There is no role for the Ombudsman.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman