This case highlights the importance of admission authorities ensuring that their outsourcing/sub-contracting arrangements for the administration of appeals (including to LAs) are fit for purpose, the terms and conditions of their contracts cover the quality of the service being provided, and the need for regular comprehensive training for Clerks and Panel members.
The parents lodged their complaint to the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (Ombudsman) on the grounds that the Admission Appeal Panel (Panel) failed to evidence its decision making and give reasons for dismissing the appeal. Places for their twin daughters had been refused on the grounds of prejudice, and the outcome letter sent by the Clerk to the parents simply said that the Panel was satisfied that further admission of pupils to the school would prejudice the provision of efficient education and efficient use of resources, and that the parents' arguments had been considered but the Panel concluded they were not sufficient to override that prejudice.
The Clerk's note of Stage 1 of the appeal did not show how the Panel had decided that the admission arrangements were lawful and properly applied, with the Panel's detailed grounds and reasons for reaching this conclusion. They simply said that the PAN had been reached, which is not consistent with the criteria for that stage of the appeals process.
The Clerk's Stage 2 notes showed some consideration of the points raised by the parents, but this was not reflected in the outcome letter sent to the parents, which listed the parents' key arguments, but failed to explain why the Panel did not accept them as sufficient to override prejudice.
The Ombudsman found that the failure to record discussions and decision making in the minutes, and to include reasons in the outcome letter to the parents, were faults by the Panel and Clerk (and therefore by East Riding of Yorkshire Council (LA), as admission authority with responsibility for ensuring that the appeals process was fair and procedurally correct). This called into question the decisions reached, and the LA agreed to apologise and arrange for a new appeal to be heard before a different Panel with a different Clerk, as well as sending written reminders to their Clerks.
The parents also complained that the Panel inappropriately questioned the mother on her work commitments, and implied it was her job to take all of her children to and from school (an older sibling was already on the roll at the school, therefore the children would need to be transported to and from different schools due to the refusal of a place). However, the Ombudsman found that exploration of this point was a key consideration of the case, and therefore no fault was attached to this.