Appeals, am I reading this wrong?

[chopchopquick]

Ladies

I appreciate you have had a fair share of questions regarding primary appeals but speaking to the LEA is like banging my head against a brick wall and I need your help as I am not sure if I am making sense of all of this. I will try to keep it short but here is the story................

We applied for three schools for DD in January before the deadline. We knew we would be moving at the end of February and selected schools in the new area. Just as an FYI our move was not out of choice, I was made redundant last year, we fell behind with a mortgage and our home was repossessed, we are now facing bankruptcy. I sent the signed tenancy agreement of the new address to the LEA on 04th Feb stating we would be moving on 02 March. The LEA did not start the allocation process until 11th Feb, after we had sent in proof of the new address but we were advised that the 02 March move date would be 5 days too late to be considered at the new address. Seemed crazy as we had already proved our moved.

We then didn't get allocated any of out three choices and got allocated a school in the old area 15 miles away. We are on waiting lists at position 7,4 and 19 for the three nearest schools. We have been told to consider other schools but the schools in the local area but there is only one other school that is a viable option (although children behind in maths) is still over a mile away which is just about walking distance with a 4year old and 2year old so we are now reapplying. We have been advised that there is only one place at this school and they know of other parents applying so we may not get it anyway and still need to look at other schools but the only other schools that have places are too far for DH to travel as he does not drive (medical grounds), I have managed to get a new job but I am out of the house 14hrs a day. The next nearest school is a 30 minute bus journey away, not allowing for traffic. The other school is still a train ride away, faith school with waiting list. DS is due to start nursery in September and so DH potentially could have to do this bus journey 6 times a day as DS will be doing half days, that or we get a nursery closer to home but then he will always be at least 30mins late for a three hour session. I understand that this won't really be taken into account as nursery is not compulsory. Not only this, given our financial situation we could not afford public transport, it is a luxury, we literally have to account and budget for every penny and we need a school that is walking distance.

Therefore, I honestly feel that the three schools we are wait listed for and the other school that is over a mile away are our only real options so I really feel I am stuck in limbo. The LEA said we don't qualify for school transport as we are not on benefits.

We are appealing as a last hope of being able to get a reasonable/realistic school place for DD but the class size limit rule makes things very difficult but I have to try for DD as I am honestly not sure what alternative we have. I have been reading the Government Schools Admissions Codes 2010 which I found on the Department for Education website. I have found something that I think maybe applicable to our situation but I have got myself into such a panic over the whole situation that I am not sure if I am understanding it correctly. The section says:

2.63 The class size legislation makes allowance for the entry of an additional child in very limited circumstances where not to admit the child would be prejudicial to his or her interests (?excepted pupils?). However, every effort must be made to keep over large classes to a minimum. These circumstances are where:

b) children move into the area outside the normal admissions round for whom there is no other available school within reasonable distance (admission authorities must check with local authorities before determining that a child falls into this category);

Is this saying that when people move into the area and there are no schools available then the school must take on an extra pupil or is it saying the opposite and that the maximum class size rule still applies even if there are no other school places available?

If it is saying the former does this apply to our situation or am I just clutching at straws?

Thank you for following, I would really appreciate any feedback.

The letter arrived today with a big NO

Just goes to prove the LAs can basically get away with what they want with no one to answer to.

Gutted :(

I am disappointed and, to be honest, surprised. Faced with this level of incompetence I would have hoped for a panel to admit. But it isn't over yet.

In a PM to me you said the panel didn't allow you to ask all your questions. Could you say what questions they wouldn't allow? You may well have a case to refer this to the Local Government Ombudsman. I would actually be tempted to go to the LGO anyway given the amount of maladministration here.

And don't give up. You still have more appeals to go!

I have filed my case with the LGO and now waiting for someone to contact me.

Have a another question ....... at the appeal, as the lady from the LA sat down she announced that as of last week they had found my daughter a school place at a nearer school, all be it still the 8th/9th nearest school. How lucky for the LA, 1.9 miles away(walking) so they don't have to cover the transport. I am not keen on this school and it is a long way to walk with a 3 and 5 year old but I realise in the situation that beggars can not be chooser. The lady from the LA at the appeal said I should receive a letter of offer when we got home or the next day. The letter didn't arrive but I contacted the school anyway to ask if they had nursery places for my son. After explaining to the admissions lady at the school we had been offered a place there she asked for me daughters name and as it turns out they had no knowledge of her. By Wednesday still no letter but later in the day I received an email from the LA listing 4 schools that had places. The so called offered school was on the list and this is the nearest and the rest being over three miles away. So as such, my DD actually hasn't got an offer of a school place at all despite the announcement at the appeal which I was annoyed with anyway because I felt it threw the appeal to a certain extent and then to find out that the announcement was actually rubbish annoyed me even more.

Question being when I appeal for the other two schools can I mention this as part of the appeal despite the appeal being for a different school? I feel like I want to tell the panel to show how underhanded the LA have been or is this not appropriate and something best left to the LGO to look into and hopefully get a fresh appeal for that school?

Secondly, having read the other post about the person being advised to HE I noticed that Panelmember(I think) advised the OP to get details of all the places allocated from the waiting list from the date at which their application should have been made. Would this be relevant for us? We know we would have been offered a local school if the application had of been treated as late from the new address. We moved on 2nd March, the offers went out on 4th April, the LA claimed to have changed our address on their system on 11th April, a week after the offers where made. If the LA had changed our address on 4th April presumably we would have been at the top of the waiting list on that date as at that point we would have been the first late applicant, or one of the first, before people having accepted rejected or requesting to go on waiting lists for the same schools. Therefore, if an offer at one of those schools had been rejected by another applicant in that week, and in theory, unless their was another late applicant on 4th April of a higher criteria we should have been the first to have been on the waiting list an offered any place that was rejected by another applicant. As our address was not changed until 11th April if any place at those schools had come available between 04th-10th April they would have been filled by the applicants that had gone on a waiting list in that week. I am struggling to explain myself here but I hope you have an idea of what I mean or of course I am totally misunderstanding things? If, you can make some sense of what I am trying to say would it be worth us trying to find out the details of the places that became available and were offered to people on the waiting list between the week 4th-10th April and if we would have been of a higher criteria than them? I have just been explaining this to DH and I have found it easier to draw a diagram but I can't do that on here!!!

If anyone is able to follow I am grateful for any advice on either points

Even if the information about the "offer" had been true I think it is wrong for the LA to introduce that at the start of an appeal hearing. In my view it is new evidence. But for them to make a false statement like this in the appeal hearing is appalling. Words fail me. It shows complete contempt for the whole process. But then this LA doesn't seem to have a clue how to run admissions. Add to that the chair of the panel refusing to allow you to ask some of your questions and I would hope the LGO decides this is a case where the result of the appeal cannot stand.

The list of schools with places raises further questions. If any of these schools have waiting lists the places must be offered to whoever is at the head of the list. If that is you they should have offered the places to you, not just sent you a list. However, I suspect that you aren't even on the list for these schools. If that is the case, whoever is at the head of the list is clearly entitled to the place. If the place is offered to you instead they have valid grounds for appeal.

You can say whatever you want (within reason) at your next two appeals. If it were me I would mention this as further evidence of maladministration by the LA. And if they announce any further "offers" at future appeals I would immediately point out what has happened here and state that you will not believe any future "offers" until you have them in your hand and you hope the panel will take the same approach.

Moving on to your waiting list question, you seem to be assuming that you would have been the only person on the waiting list on 4th April. That is not correct. The waiting list should also have contained everyone who applied for the school and did not get a place at that school or one of their higher preferences. There is therefore no guarantee that you would have been at the head of the waiting list. However, if at any point you should have been at the head of the list when a vacancy came up and the place was not offered to you that would be grounds for appeal.

To be honest, I am sceptical of the LA's claim to have changed your address from 11th April. They continued to send information to your old address right up to the appeal. That doesn't prove that they failed to change your address but nor does it inspire confidence that they did.

Thanks prh.

I thought the building of waiting lists didn't happen until after someone had accepted/rejected and asked to go on a waiting list. That's ok, we have already established they should have treated the application as a late one anyway but I suppose I just imagined I would have been higher on the waiting list at that time. Yes like you say I am not sure the LA have a clue what they are doing and almost nothing surprises me now.

Hoping to hear from LGO in next few weeks

Chopchop,
You certainly seem to be on the receiving end of every bad practice by this LA and I have every sympathy for you.
As PRH has said it was totally wrong of the LA to say that a place has been offered at the start of the appeal, when it had not and has not. It was a deliberate attempt by the LA to influence the panel's decision. However what you do need to understand is that it is perfectly sensible for the Panel to be asking the LA where places are available and the kind of distances that they would be. At appeals we are frequently asked for a place at a very popular school when actually they are going past other schools with places to get to the wished-for school.
You need to be emphasising the timing of the announcement of a school place being offered to the LGO not that other schools with places may have been discussed during the appeal.

Thank you Admissions. Definitely only walking past full up schools in our case and this is exactly what I am trying to avoid.

I really hope the LGO are able to look into this for us. It makes me cross to think what the LA have done. I feel we at least deserve a fresh appeal.

I am back with another question.

Thankfully the LGO are now investigating our complaint and they have written to the LA with details of the complaint and requesting a whole list of information from the LA about the application. I am very pleased that at long last someone is taking us seriously and looking into things. However, we have recieved the date for our second and third appeal but I am a little concerned that now the LA know the LGO are investigating the first appeal it will affect the second and third appeal in a negative way as the LA representative maybe annoyed with us because of the investigation. Perhaps I am worring too much?

On a separate note, after emailing the LA two weeks ago and telephoning last week to find out our current position on the waiting lists, the LA got back to me today. Unfortunately, we have gone down the list, I am aware this can happen but not really the news I wanted to hear.

I hope their reaction to being investigated will be to behave themselves at the second and third appeals. If they say anything about the fact this has gone to the LGO or try to pull any further tricks in these appeals they should know that you will be off to the LGO again.

Before in a post you said you wanted to highlight the poor practice of the LA at these two appeals. If you do that then there is a danger that you give the LA the opportunity to defend themselves for previous problems but also paint you as being vexatious by going to the LGO. The appeal is for a specific school and past history should not come into it, so as PRH says if the LA mention it, that is another little problem for the LGO to resolve but if you bring it up then you allow them to also talk about it.
I would keep to the facts of the case as you see it for this particular school.
They will however be quite at liberty to say what school you have been offered a place at and where there are places. If they somehow contrive to say you have been offered a place at the school where you have not been offered a place, well apart from laugh I do not know how to react. I know what I would be tempted to say but I am not sure you should say that in public. Actually at that point there is no reason why you should then not disclose the referral to the LGO and just point out to the panel that the LA still continue to exhibit a complete lack of capability and common sense as they have not offered such a place, so how can the panel take anything the LA say as being correct.

Over the weekend we recieved the details of the findings of the unsuccessful appeal. Of course this is not new news but the summary of findings makes no reference to the admission codes being broken or that our application was not processed as it should of been. It does mention the offer of the school place that was made (but never transpired). We have the date of our next two appeals but seeing the summary really makes me consider if there is any point seeing as last time the appeal panel were made aware of all the wrong doing and still ruled in the LA's favour. I am on a temporary contract so if I don't go to work I don't get paid. Honestly, is it time to give up and stop wasting energy/money?

Don't give up. It is likely to be a different appeal panel for the other schools. And the fact that the summary mentions the alleged offer simply confirms that you are right to take this to the LGO. Make sure you tell the LGO about this. Don't let the b***ds get you down.

Agree, talk to the LGO and submit this evidence showing that the panel did take material note of the fact that you have been offered a place when in reality it was a lie and therefore disadvanted your child.