fiddlyfoodlebird if you look back to an earlier point in the thread, the issue of 'pass marks' was discussed. It is a very important point. Some LAs use a 'pass mark' and the Admissions Code specifically allows them to leave spaces empty if not enough children gain the specified pass mark. This means that unless the child can be shown to be grammar school material, that exceptional circumstances were at play that affected their pass mark and that the prejudice to the school from admitting is less than the prejudice to the child from being deprived of the place, their appeal will fail. Even if there are 14 spare places.
Perma's DD's Grammar School have no such system. They do not set a pass mark. They simply rank the scores in order and take the first, say, 230 children on the list according to the rankings. If there are several children on the list who scored the same score and could therefore all qualify for the last place, then oversubscription criteria would apply.
This is an important point when looking at the Bishop Vessey case, because the recommendation was that all children who 'passed' got the opportunity of a fresh appeal. The implicit consequence of that is that while the maladministration affected the appeals of those children who did not pass, they could not benefit from it because the correct criteria had already excluded them.
Habba the BV case could have now been very relevant, because Perma's case now is a potential EFA (LGO equivalent) case. If Yellowtip's understanding of the case had been left to stand, it may have given Perma or another parent reading in the future, the impression that their grounds for further appeal were inadequate. The distinction between a grammar 'pass' system and a grammar 'first past the post' system is important.
In any case, it is a bit irrelevant, because this is about a withdrawn place, not a place not offered, which LaVolcan pointed out eloquently.
Further to your earlier point:
"I don't recall seeing it posted but has anyone seen the full text of the appeal denial?
Its just that everyone is outraged that the appeals panel has ignored the law but I would have thought that the official letter would have detailed the legal reason for denying the appeal. "
We don't have access to the full text of the decision, but the bit that Perma quoted:
"Here's part of the appeal decisions: ".... the panel agreed that the admissions arrangements complied with the mandatory requirements of the Schools Admissions Code and Part 3 of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 and that the admission arrangements were correctly and impartially applied......"
specifically "and that the admission arrangements were correctly and impartially applied......", is so clearly wrong that the whole judgement is called into doubt. If the admission arrangements were correctly applied, Perma wouldn't be in a possession of an offer letter stating that her DD had a place!
Remember, again, that the mistake which clause 3.5 deals with in this case, would be the mistake of withdrawing the place too late, or rather, to put it into 'positive terms' - taking too long to realise the mistake and failing to withdraw it within the established window of opportunity. That mistake deprived Perma's DD of the place that was, by then, hers.