The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a school admissions appeal panel’s decision as it is unlikely we would find fault.
The complaint
Miss X, says the Council’s schools admissions panel failed to properly consider her appeal for a place at School X.
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 a 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) We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe: it is unlikely we would find fault, or the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Miss X which included the appeal papers.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Miss X applied for a place for her child, Y, to start in reception immediately at School Z. Y had attended another school but Miss X had removed Y following an incident. The Council says she is recorded as electively home educating. However, Y is not yet of compulsory school age.
The year Miss X applied for in School Z is full. The Council refused the application. Miss X appealed to the schools admissions appeal panel. The appeal panel rejected the appeal and considered the appeal under the Infant Class Size rules.
Miss X complained to us because she says: There is already one extra child in the class to make 31.
She has lived in the area all her life and should have priority for a place at School Z.
A place at School Z would make things logistically easier for her family.
She is struggling to home educate.
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.
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.
ICS appeals also applies where admitting a further child would lead to a breach of the infant class size limit in future years.
The clerk to the panel must write to the appellant, the admission authority and the council with the panel’s decision and reasons.
We cannot question whether a 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.
The appeal panel’s decision letter sets out the appeal panel’s decision and it is unlikely we would find it has not considered the right factors.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman