Academy admission appeals – what to look out for

A recent report (March 26) from the Department for Education’s (DfE) School Complaints Compliance Unit (SCCU) provides some useful reminders in relation to the conduct of admission appeals. The report summarises findings from almost 300 complaints of maladministration.  It would be helpful for academies to bear these in mind for future appeals. 

The most common reasons for complaints included:

• timescales not being adhered to;
• failure to provide relevant information prior to the appeal;
• decision letters containing incorrect information; and
• arrangements not being compliant with the School Admission Appeals Code (SAAC)

Of the complaints upheld, key issues included administrative errors, omissions in the clerk’s notes, the decision letters failing to meet requirements and the appellants being unable to engage fully in remote or hybrid hearings. Some examples of each of these are set out below with reference (where relevant) to the relevant section of the SAAC. For the full list of issues please refer to the report.

Administrative errors

• failure to give the required 10 days’ notice of the hearing (SAAC 2.1b)
• failure to ensure appellants are aware of the hearing date and time (SAAC 2.7)
• delays in holding hearings (SAAC 2.3)

Clerk’s notes

• notes did not evidence that the panel had properly considered whether the admission authority could demonstrate prejudice (SAAC 3.10)
• notes did not evidence that the panel had properly considered all 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 (SAAC 3.8)
• notes did not evidence the written information received and considered (SAAC 2.24c)

Decision letters (SAAC 2.27-2.28)

• included inaccurate information
• included information that seemed to relate to another appellant’s case
• failed to include the evidence that the panel had considered

Remote/hybrid hearings (SAAC 2.16)

• technical issues 
• failure to consider an adjournment or make alternative arrangements where an appellant was unable to attend 

Academies are bound to comply with the SAAC by their funding agreements. There is DFE guidance for clerks and appeal panels which may assist with ensuring hearings are conducted fairly and includes suggestions which may prevent common complaints.  However, by way of reminder:

• Appeal hearings can be in person, remote or hybrid – reasonable adjustments must be considered when deciding on the appropriate format.
• The appellant must always be given the opportunity to make oral representations.
• The principles of natural justice must apply.
• The clerk and panel members must be trained in admissions law.
• Appellants must be provided with clear information before the hearing in line with timescales set out in SAAC s2.
• The process must be explained at the start of each hearing.
• All parties must be treated fairly and consistently.
• Each case must be considered on its merits.
• A record must be taken of the proceedings including start and end times, attendance and format, relevant points raised, any adjournments, voting and reasons for decisions and any decisions taken in relation to reasonable adjustments.
• Decision letters must be written in plain English with clear reasons for the outcome and a summary of relevant factors raised by both parties.
• Appellants must be signposted on how to complain to the DfE about maladministration.

If you need any advice about admissions or admission appeals, please do not hesitate to contact your usual Stone King contact.