Ombudsman Ruling – School M and Ms X
Thank you for your correspondence regarding this matter. I hope you will allow us to provide
feedback regarding your proposed view, which we hope will prove helpful.
The first point we would like to make is based on what we believe is an important part of this case;
though we, the LA, is the admissions authority for our community schools, that in instances such as
this, there be a recognition that we are still two entities. This we believe would add some further
context to the proposed view before it becomes determined. Though this may not be a popular
view, we believe something such as an Ombudsman ruling, which will ultimately become a report,
could assist LA in their efforts to ensure that schools comply with all aspects of the School
Admissions Code. Simply holding LAs responsible for independent actions carried out at a school will
not achieve much change in the future and this, we believe, is the experience of many LAs.
We recognise that this report treats the school and the LA as a single entity. This, in our view, leads
to some inconsistencies that we believe needs to be addressed. As previously stated, we believe this
‘glove’ will fit most scenarios. However, in cases such as this, we hope this determined view can
assist LAs all over the Country, who are an admission authority for schools.
I thought it might be helpful if I continued accordingly:
Fault #1
24. M School cannot provide evidence that it told the Council it had a vacancy and the Council says it did not
hear from the school. We accept the Council did not know about the vacancy. It could not therefore follow the
proper procedure of contacting the person on the waiting list with the highest priority and giving their details
to the school. It is unclear why the school gave a place to Ms C’s child and why it did not contact the Council to
confirm to whom the vacancy had been given.
Lambeth’s response: We are pleased that our position of not knowing of the vacancy at School M
was recognised and accepted as fact by your service, as this is the case. We also agree with the
above conclusion point, which identified that we “could not” implement our procedure, as
procedures can only be implemented when information is available. This is the case for all
admission authorities. As you are aware, admission arrangements used in the case of
oversubscription prioritise applications based on circumstances and knowledge of facts and so it is
impossible for any admissions authority to apply its criteria when a circumstance is not known.
The only matter not clear here (which may be a minor point) is why such a statement is regarded as
a fault, as this is the section these comments are in. We would like to propose that it would be
clearer, for all parties, if there was a statement identifying that the fault was the schools, as an entity
that is reliant on the LA with regards to admissions, then that would add clarity to the text.
Fault #2
25. The Council is responsible for admissions to M School and we are not satisfied that proper procedures were
followed to fill the vacancy which arose. Failing to administer the admissions process properly was fault by the
Council. The published admissions arrangements for schools are in place to offer parents the opportunity to
express a preference for the school they would like their child to attend. In failing to properly manage the
waiting list for M School the Council has failed to ensure the preferences expressed by Ms X, the parents of the
child at the top of the waiting list and the parents of the nine other children who were above Ms C’s child on
the waiting list have been given their true weight.
Page | 1
Lambeth’s response: Again, without the clear distinction between school and LA, the wording in the
above point seems to be a contradiction of the first point.
In the previous point you clearly state that the Council “could not therefore follow the proper
procedure of contacting the person on the waiting list”. Yet in this point it is stated that “Failing to
administer the admissions process properly was fault by the Council … the Council has failed to
ensure the preferences expressed by Ms X, the parents of the child at the top of the waiting list and
the parents of the nine other children who were above Ms C’s child on the waiting list have been
given their true weight.
This wording seems to imply that there was wilful negligence on the Council’s part, which
contradicts the first point completely. We do recognise that this proposed view may be identifying
the school and the admissions authority as one, but I am sure you can appreciate that this is not the
case. The School Admissions Code identifies that though admissions authorities are responsible for
the admission of children at a specific school, they are indeed two bodies. The Code mentions
admission authorities (which seem to imply LAs) and ‘own admissions authorities’ which seem to
imply admission authority schools. It also speaks of community schools and their governance, etc.
These differences can be born out through communication and these differences should be
recognised.
The Code also talks about schools and admission authorities in different ways. We strongly feel that
even though we are the admissions authority of School M, the wording in this section should, as per
the first point, reflect a clear dichotomy between the schools action and the LAs inability to act. This,
we would present to the LGO, is an opportunity to also continue to identify this difference through
the ‘Fault’ part of the report and if so, then identify recommendations appropriately to the various
parties.
Though we accept the fact that the place was not offered to the child who was top of the waiting list
(we have commented further on this later) we do not believe that we:
1. Failed to properly manage the waiting list initially at all, as there was no information relayed
to us before the direct offer was made for appropriate management to occur.
2. Failed to administer the admissions process. Instead, we believe the wording in the first part
of the report where the wording used was ‘could not’. The wording in this section still
suggests wilful negligence and this was not the case. The process could not be administered
at all by the LA as we were not furnished with information from either a parent or the school
that would suggest that the process needed to be implemented. Would the LGO kindly
consider re-phrasing the wording in this report so that it can clearly identify a dichotomy of
actions by School M and an inability to apply action by the LA.
Fault #3
26. There were no grounds for the Council to withdraw the place from Ms C’s child, even though she
was not entitled to it, as she was already attending the school. The Code specifically forbids this. The
Council should have offered the place to the child who was at the top of the waiting list. And in failing
to do this it failed to consider the impact of the wrongful admission on that child. That was fault by
the Council.
Lambeth’s response: This fault is accepted.
Page | 2
Fault #4
27. The Council could have directed the school to provide a place, and taken measures to ensure the
class size limit was not breached, such as the employment of an additional teacher. We have seen no
evidence it considered this and we are satisfied its failure here was fault. Instead it left it to the
independent appeal panel which did not have the authority to consider the wrongful management of
the waiting list, which was the crux of the problem. The panel was put in the position of having to
consider the wrongful offer of a place to a child lower down the waiting list and it consequently
considered this when reaching its decision. The Code prohibits panels from taking account of position
on the waiting list so it should not have done this. However, we accept that in order to consider Ms
X’s case the panel was in a difficult position in this regard.
Lambeth’s response: The school stated that they did not want to breach their infant class size limit.
That was the argument presented by the school with regards to not admitting Q as an extra child. I
hope it proves helpful to point out that the LA did contact School M and ask them to admit an
additional child. However, the school refused on the grounds identified in your findings; the infant
class size limits. This was pointed out at the appeal hearing.
The admissions authority did not base its case on the waiting list as we are aware that this should
not be taken into account when deliberating matters and decision-making. It was Ms X who based
her whole case on the waiting list issue and the panel asked questions regarding this. We would like
to present to the LGO that the wording in the report where it states that ‘it was left to the panel’ to
consider the waiting list was inaccurate as it was not a position that the LA put the panel in.
Injustice
28. The child at the top of the waiting list has lost out on the opportunity to attend M School from
September 2013. We see no reason to doubt that child would have been attending M School for most
of the current academic year. That this child is not at its parent’s preferred school is an injustice,
which the Council should remedy.
Lambeth’s response: We agree that this matter should be remedied by the LA urgently as per this
point. As it is currently the school holidays we are committed to ensuring that this child has a place
at the school by the beginning of the new academic year in the appropriate year group.
The LA will discuss with the school in the new academic year qualifying measures that may need to
be considered regarding this extra pupil.
29. Ms X has not lost out on a place for Q at M School, but has been caused an injustice because she
has had the time and trouble of pursuing an appeal and complaining to me.
The appeal was almost bound to fail as she had not lost out on a place for Q because of the Council’s
failure to apply the admission arrangements properly. In recognition of this injustice, the Council
should pay her £500. Had there been no fault, Q would now be top of the waiting list for a place.
Lambeth’s response: The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 state that it is the parents right
to appeal and in this case it was the parent who submitted the appeal and pursued the matter. It is
not clear to the LA why time and trouble, which is a form of compensation, needs to be paid for this.
The parent elected to exercise their statutory right as the law permits them to and though we do
recognise that this presents its own challenges, the responsibility and work with regards to ensuring
Page | 3
that Panel is furnished with the correct information etc, belongs to the LA. The parents also chose to
approach your service to complain and it just seems strange that we now must compensate Ms X for
her own choices and actions.
We do recognise that Ms X feels there has been injustice but this injustice did not stop Q from
getting a place at the school, though it did affect her waiting list position. Nevertheless, we followed
advice from our Democratic Services (I believe they ran this past their Legal Team) that the parents
have the right to present their concern to an IAP if they so wished, as there was significant change
that warranted that. Is the LGO advising that in this situation an appeal should not have been
offered? Any further clarity that you can provide on this matter would be appreciated.
Finally, would the LGO see it appropriate to identify that School M should pay any money
(compensation for time and effort) to the family if the LGO remained unmoved with regards to this
payment?
30. All those families whose children were between first and eleventh position on the waiting list for
a place at M School last September, including Ms X, have been let down by the Council’s failure to
manage the waiting list for M School properly. The Ombudsman cannot require the Council to offer
places at M School, but we are publishing this report to remind the Council of its duties and so that it
can consider such action as may be necessary to improve resources in the school so that it can
lawfully take additional children into the relevant year group.
Lambeth’s response: Again, we put it to the LGO that we did not fail to manage the waiting list; for
reasons outlined previously. Though the decision to publish the report is something that we
recognise the LGO can decide to do, again, we believe that the reason for doing so is not helpful; to
have the above wording in the published document would be unfair and unjust for the LA. There is
nowhere in the report or indeed anything that was recognised by the LGO investigator when they
attended the LA’s offices, that we did not understand our duties. We do and will continue to make
every effort to inform schools of their responsibility to comply with admission regulations/policies
and procedures.
As previously mentioned, we are not an own admissions authority but an LA admitting authority.
Punishing LAs for inappropriate actions by one of its community schools, we feel, is wrong and will
not act as a sufficient deterrent to prevent schools from acting otherwise. The publishing of this
report presents an opportunity to send a clear message to schools about complying with statutory
duties. The wording here indicates that all the wrongs with regards to this matter was something
maliciously done by the LA, which is not the case.
Finally on this point also, we would like to ask the LGO to reconsider publishing this report, based on
the fact that the LA is fully aware of its duties. This was recognised in the appeal hearing also. What
was established was that the school did not comply with the duties managed by the LA. The LA will
only be admitting the child on the first position on the waiting list as this was the only child affected
by the direct offer made by the school. The school operates a split site and admits 120 children (60
per site) in the year group the additional child will be entering in September. Therefore, the only
qualifying measures that will be agreed with the school will be for one child only. We respectively
ask whether this is still grounds, in the eyes of the LGO, to make this report public as we see no
public interest at this stage.
Page | 4
Decision
31. We have completed our investigation into this complaint. There was fault by the Council which
caused injustice to Ms X and other people. The Council should take the action detailed below to
remedy that injustice.
Recommendations
32. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified above, we recommend the Council should:

apologise to the parents of all eleven children who had a higher priority for the place at M
School than Ms C’s child
Lambeth’s response: We do apologise for sounding repetitive but we again respectfully present to
the LGO that this does not take into consideration the schools responsibility to comply with the LAs
admissions process but simply punishes the LA. You will have noticed from the attached response
from the school that they comment on this particular recommendation. Would the LGO kindly
respond to the concern raised by the school?

consider such action as may be necessary to improve resources in M School so that it can
lawfully take additional children into the relevant year group.
Lambeth’s response: The LA will only be admitting the child on the first position on the waiting list
to School M as this was the only child affected by the direct offer made by the school. The school
operates a split site and admits 120 children (60 per site) in the year group the additional child will
be entering in September. We are confident therefore that arrangements will be made where the
infant class size legislation will be fully honoured.

pay Ms X £500 to recognise the unnecessary time and trouble she was caused by the Council
offering an appeal that had no real chance of success, and by her having to pursue this
complaint.
Lambeth’s response: Our concern has been raised above with regards to, which we kindly ask the
LGO to consider

consider what steps can be taken to ensure proper procedures are followed in future,
including writing to all schools in its area to reiterate the proper process for filling places
from the waiting list when vacancies arise.
Lambeth’s response: we feel this is a very helpful and appropriate way forward and a really useful
recommendation. Whilst considering the dichotomy between the LA and schools, it is very powerful
to be able to continue communicating with our schools the importance of complying with all aspects
of coordination (even post-offer protocols) and to say the LGO has also instructed this is very useful.
It is very unfortunate that lessons are often learned in retrospect, after things have gone wrong. I
can confirm that the school are extremely repentant of the error caused and we are sure that other
schools will continue to follow regulations after being encouraged to do so as a result of this
recommendation.
Page | 5
This will be done as soon as the new academic year starts.
Page | 6