The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr B says the admissions appeal panel considering his daughter’s case was biased, that he was not given enough time to present his case, that he was refused a face-to-face appeal and that the appeal panel failed to properly consider his appeal. I have found no evidence of fault in the process.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complained the admissions appeal panel organised by the Council: was biased as it consisted of retired teachers and a school governor; failed to give him enough time to present his case; refused to allow a face-to-face appeal; and failed to properly consider his appeal.
Mr B says as a result his daughter has to attend a school where none of her friends go which will impact on her mental health and he will have to transport his daughter to school by car.
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 must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
As part of the investigation, I have: considered the complaint and Mr B's comments; made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
Mr B and the organisation now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.
What I found
What should have happened The Government introduced changes to the admission appeals regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic. These applied until 30 September 2022 and allowed for appeal hearings to take place by telephone or video conference or, where that was not possible, on the basis of written submissions.
The school admissions appeals code (the code) says the admission authority, or the clerk acting on behalf of the admission authority, must appoint an independent appeal panel that is comprised of a chair and at least two other panel members. A panel must consist of the following persons with at least one from each category: a) lay people (someone without personal experience in the management of any school or provision of education in any school (except as a school governor or in another voluntary capacity)); b) people who have experience in education, who are acquainted with educational conditions in the local authority area, or who are parents of registered pupils at school.
The code sets out a two stage procedure for admissions appeal panels to follow. At the first stage the panel must consider the following matters in relation to each child that is the subject of an appeal: a) whether the admission arrangements (including the area’s co-ordinated admission arrangements) complied with the mandatory requirements of the School Admissions Code and Part 3 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998; and b) whether the admission arrangements were correctly and impartially applied in the case in question.
The panel must then decide whether the admission of additional children would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.
The panel must proceed to the second stage where: a) it finds that the admission arrangements did comply with admissions law and that they were correctly and impartially applied to the child; or b) it finds that the admission arrangements did not comply with admissions law or were not correctly and impartially applied but that, if they had complied and had been correctly and impartially applied, the child would not have been offered a place; At the second stage the panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for the child to be admitted to the school. It must take into account the appellant’s reasons for expressing a preference for the school, including what that school can offer the child that the allocated or other schools cannot. If the panel considers that the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school it must uphold the appeal.
When considering prejudice the panel must take into account the school’s published admission number. However, the admission authority must be able to demonstrate prejudice over and above the fact that the published admission number has already been reached. The panel must not reassess the capacity of the school but must consider the impact on the school of admitting additional children.
What happened Mr B applied for a reception class place for his daughter and expressed a preference for three schools. Mr B did not get a place for his daughter at his first preference school. Mr B therefore submitted an appeal. An appeal panel heard Mr B’s appeal in June 2021 and refused it. The decision letter to Mr B following the appeal explained the appeal panel was satisfied the admissions arrangements complied with the mandatory provisions, that the admissions arrangements had been correctly applied in his daughter’s case and that admission of further pupils to the year group would cause prejudice.
Analysis Mr B says the appeal panel was biased as it consisted of retired teachers and a school governor. I set out in paragraph 9 what the school admissions appeal code says about who can sit on an admissions appeal panel. As the code makes clear someone who has experience in education can be included on the panel as can school governors. In this case I am satisfied the panel members were made up of one current governor, one former governor and one retired teacher. That is not a breach of the code and therefore I could not criticise the Council for the make up of the appeal panel.
Mr B says the Council refused to provide him with a face-to-face appeal and did not give him enough time to present his case. In terms of the face-to-face appeal, I am satisfied the Government extended the changes to the admissions appeal arrangements which were introduced during COVID-19 to September 2022. Under those revised admissions appeal arrangements the Council could carry out appeals over the telephone or based on written representations rather than arranging a face-to-face meeting. I therefore cannot criticise the Council for doing that in this case given the appeal took place in June 2022.
In terms of the time given to Mr B to present his case I understand he believed he would have 30 minutes to do that. However, I am satisfied after Mr B submitted his appeal the Council sent him details of how the appeal would take place. I am satisfied that included an explanation of the procedure which made clear the hearing was listed for half an hour and would cover introductions, that the representing officer would open the hearing by summarising the school’s case, Mr B and the panel would then have an opportunity to ask questions and then Mr B would be able to put his case following which panel members and the representing officer could ask questions. I am therefore satisfied the Council had told Mr B what would take place during the hearing and that it would be listed for half an hour. I therefore do not consider the Council misled Mr B about the length of time he would have to make representations as it should have been clear that the 30 minutes was for the entire hearing, rather than just the time for Mr B to present his case. I am also satisfied in this case the appeal took longer than 30 minutes as the Chair gave Mr B additional time to outline his daughter’s case. I therefore do not consider the Council at fault here.
Mr B says the appeal panel failed to properly consider his appeal. Mr B says the school is not full and the published admissions number is 15 but there are only 12 pupils in reception year. Mr B therefore says the school has three places available and could admit his daughter.
I outline in paragraphs 12-16 the process the appeal panel has to go through when considering the appeal. The issue is not with whether the school is full but rather whether the panel was satisfied that the admissions arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements, that the admissions arrangements were correctly and impartially applied and that the admission of additional children would cause prejudice to the provision of education or the efficient use of resources.
I have carefully considered the information presented to the appeal panel, the minutes of the appeal panel meeting and the decision letter following the appeal. Having considered those documents I am satisfied the panel properly considered Mr B’s appeal. I say that because the documentation from the appeal hearing shows the appeal panel took into account the information both the representing officer and Mr B provided before deciding that the admissions arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements and had been correctly applied in Mr B’s daughter’s case. I am also satisfied the notes from the appeal hearing show the appeal panel properly considered the representations Mr B made about his daughter and weighed those against the case presented by the representing officer. I am also satisfied panel members explained their reasoning for deciding the representing officer had demonstrated prejudice would result if an additional pupil were admitted, referring to the published admissions number for the school (which was 10 at the time rather than 15 as Mr B claims) and the number of children with special educational needs in the reception class. I recognise Mr B is unhappy with the outcome of the appeal hearing. However, as I have not found any fault in how the appeal panel considered Mr B’s appeal I have no grounds to criticise it.
Draft decision Subject to further comments from Mr B or the Council, I intend to complete my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman