Report
on an investigation into
complaint no 05/C/11366 against
Leeds City Council
29 March 2006
Beverley House 17 Shipton Road York YO30 5FZ
Page 265
Investigation into complaint no 05/C/11366
against Leeds City Council
Table of Contents
Page
Report Summary
1
Introduction
3
Investigation
3
Background Information and Advice Given by the Council to
Parents
3
The Reasons Behind the Council’s Undertaking and the Problems
that then Arose
4
Subsequent Events
5
Conclusion
5
Key to names used
Mrs Park
-
the Complainant
David
-
the Complainant’s son
Page 266
Report Summary
Education
The complainant sent her son to a particular school. That school was due to close but she
was reassured by a categorical statement by the Council that all pupils at the school would
be found places at a new Academy. In the event the Academy could not accommodate all
of the pupils.
Finding
The Council’s categorical promise of places was maladministration in that certainty was
never really possible. The promise should have been suitably qualified. Even without
maladministration the complainant’s circumstances would have been difficult but she
suffered the injustice of needless additional anxiety and distress. In the end the Academy
was able to offer a place for the complainant’s son – an offer which was accepted.
Recommended remedy
The Council should pay to the complainant £250 for the injustice noted.
1
05/C/11366
Page 267
2
05/C/11366
Page 268
Introduction
1.
Mrs Park complains because the Council1 was unable to honour an undertaking that
her son David would have a place at a specific secondary school.
2.
For legal reasons, the names used in this report are not the real names of the people
and places concerned2.
3.
An officer of the Commission has obtained information from the Council and has met
senior officers. He has talked to Mrs Park.
4.
An opportunity has been given for Mrs Park and the Council to comment on a draft of
this report prior to the addition of the conclusion.
Investigation
Background Information and Advice Given by the Council to Parents
5.
David is currently in his first year of secondary education at School A. Mrs Park had
only reluctantly accepted a place at this school. She had appealed against the offer but
had lost that appeal. She was, however, reassured by information from the Council
that in due course David would have a place at a new ‘Academy’.
6.
That information was contained in a guide issued by the Council in order to help
parents select a secondary school. The guide stated that it was proposed to close
School A (and another school) and that the new Academy “…will receive the pupils
of the closing schools.” The guide went on to state:
“Pupils in attendance at (School A) will be guaranteed places
at the Academy.”
7.
Before a school is closed the proposal must be subject to public notification and
confirmation by ‘The Schools Organisation Committee’ (SOC) – a body independent
of the Council. Public notices issued by the Council on the proposed closure of
School A confirmed that “…..pupils attending the school at the time of closure will
transfer to the new (Academy)”. That information was reported to the SOC when it
unanimously approved the closure.
1 The Council has created an ‘arms length’ organisation called ‘Education Leeds’ which now deals with such issues as
appear in this report on its behalf. For simplicity I will refer to ‘the Council’ throughout.
3
05/C/11366
Page 269
8.
Officers say that the information in the guide to parents had to reflect the information
in the public notices and as reported to the SOC. In commenting on a draft of this
report the Council stresses that the relevant notices were published in good faith and
in the “reasonable expectation” that all transferring children would be found places at
the Academy.
9.
The new Academy is independent of the Council. It sets its own admissions policy
and the Council cannot require it to offer places to any specific children. The
Academy was, however, set up with the intention that, at the outset, it took in pupils
from the two closing schools.
10. The Council points out that the Academy itself set the limit at 180. It also points out
that the Academy itself, in a newsletter, stated that pupils at schools A and B “will be
guaranteed a place at the Academy”.
The Reasons Behind the Council’s Undertaking and the Problems that then Arose
11. The admission limits3 set for the first year at the two closing schools totalled 330.
This is well above the limit for the first year group at the Academy, which has been
set at 180.
12. Historically both closing schools have been significantly undersubscribed to the point
that the totals in the first year groups did not exceed 180. Officers say they thought
that this historic situation would remain and on that basis it was assumed that the
Academy could take all pupils at the closing schools.
13. In the event the number of pupils in School A’s year of entry for 2005 was much
higher than anticipated. This led to the combined totals of both closing schools in the
first year being 54 above the Academy’s admission limit.
14. Officers say that this was caused by a number of factors that they did not foresee. In
particular a Roman Catholic School was closed and that caused more people to apply
for places at School A (which does have a religious character). They also point to a
general reorganisation of secondary education in Leeds which had various unforeseen
consequences, including an increase of interest in School A.
2 Local Government Act 1974, section 30(3)
3 These limits are calculated according to a formula and are the point after which places will be denied in the relelvant
year group.
4
05/C/11366
Page 270
15. That there was going to be a problem was first apparent to officers on the Summer of
2005. From that point on arrangements were made to try and find satisfactory
alternative arrangements for the 54 children, including David, who would not be able
to go to the Academy. Those 54 children were selected after applying the Academy’s
own admissions criteria.
Subsequent Events
16. David’s name was placed on a waiting list for places at the Academy. Mrs Park was
not prepared to accept a place at any of the alternative schools identified by the
Council. She did have certain rights of appeal but in the event a place at the
Academy became available from the waiting list as from September 2006. Mrs Park
accepted that offer. She says that whilst she is pleased that David has this place both
she and David have been caused needless stress and anxiety by the Council’s initial
failure to fulfil its undertaking of a place at the Academy.
17. Officer says that they now realise it was unwise to have given a categorical assurance
of places at the Academy. They say that in future suitable qualifications would be
made.
Conclusion
18. If a promise is made it should be kept. If there is a chance that circumstances will
change and a promise cannot be kept then any advice should be suitably qualified.
That is a lesson that those involved here have learned the hard way. The Council’s
ultimate inability to fulfil its undertaking was maladministration. That criticism
stands quite independently of whatever the Academy did or did not do or what the
Council was able to achieve afterwards.
19. The situation for Mrs Park and David would still have been difficult even had
suitable qualifications been made. School A would still be due to close and a place
would (initially at least) still have been denied by the Academy. Mrs Park would still
have needed to make suitable arrangements to educate David. However, the inability
by the Council to meet its undertaking would have been wholly unexpected and
would have caused anxiety and distress beyond what was inevitable anyway. That is
the injustice from the maladministration.
20. To remedy that injustice the Council should pay to Mrs Park £250. I accept that the
relevant lessons have been learned. One reason why I decided to proceed here to a
5
05/C/11366
Page 271
public report was to alert other authorities to the very important lesson about the need
not to make categorical promises unless they will, regardless of events, be fulfilled.
21. When commenting on a draft of this report the Council stressed the work put in by
offices with the Academy to try and avoid any problems arising. The Council
expressed concern at the potential for it to be criticised in isolation from the
Academy. The Council states that the Academy:
“…..has not felt able to assist in resolving the issue by, for
example the use of temporary classrooms on site”.
Anne Seex
29 March 2006
Local Government Ombudsman
Beverley House
17 Shipton Road
York
YO30 5FZ
6
05/C/11366
Page 272