Withdrawn offer of primary place!!

[Didd]

Just after some advice on our unique situation really - sorry, it's a long story.

We currently have 2 kids at a primary school 15-20 mins drive away (4.5 miles). The eldest is due to go up to secondary in Sept. & a brand new Secondary Academy was built a couple of years ago literally accross the fields from us 10-15 minute walk, she's got a place, great relief all round. By happy coincidence, last Oct we heard that the same 'free schools trust' was consulting on starting a new primary school on this site, also in September. We duly filled in & submitted our application, and attended all the meetings for prospective parents. It was a direct application to them rather than LEA, because it was a brand new 'free' school. Our youngest is in Year 1 and would be due to go up to Year 2 in September, however she is developmentally behind and always has struggled due to being premature. We feel she will benefit from re doing Year 1, and were open and honest when explaining this to the school (new school would take reception and Year 1 only in initial year). This was all accepted with no problem and on 1st Feb we were offered a place for her. Cue celebrations.
Fast forward 3+ months to a couple of days ago, and we get a phone call from the Head Teacher telling us they have to withdraw the offer as a review of applications between board of trustees and LEA means that they cannot accept children outside their chronological year. No way around it, and no mention of whether we can appeal. Devastated!!
We met the following morning, and it seems there has in the last week or so been several parents from our current school contacting the new school for a place as well. The school have several places remaining so don't feel they can say no, and are worried that they could end up with half the children needing Year 2 level teaching, and no funding to cope with it.
The decision was therefore made to put their hands up to an 'error' in offering our place (and two other offers where chronological year is involved), and for us to go to appeal - thus if successful we get a place but they do not open themselves up to legal challenge from other parents.
We can understand that they need to be seen to have done everything correctly otherwise the whole plan for the new school could be blown due to them not having been seen to be fair to these other enquiries, but we are aggrieved that we have to go to appeal after such a long time - we have a very strong case we think, but there is always a chance, however small.
Anyway, any advice on best way to formulate an appeal to give us the best chance, or any other views most welcomed.
Sorry it was so long, and hope it makes some sense - we're struggling get our heads around it ourselves!!

Thanks SchoolsNightmare - it would be nice to avoid the appeal if we can.
Calling all admission experts then...............!

The admissions code applies to free schools. The rules say that there are only very limited circumstances in which an offer can be withdrawn. I see no reason why that should not apply in this situation. They seem to be saying that the place was offered in error. If that is the case they needed to withdraw the offer within a few days. As SchoolsNightmare says, 3 months is ridiculous.

Draw the school's attention to Admissions Code paragraph 1.50 (this is the 2010 Admissions Code which still applies). Tell them that you understand that the LGO has ruled that a place offered in error can only be withdrawn within a few days of the offer being made. Point out that in any case this paragraph refers to an error made by the LA, not the school. Tell them that you expect them to honour the offer that was made.

If you have to go to appeal your argument is that the place was withdrawn contrary to the Admissions Code paragraph 1.50 and that it should therefore be reinstated.

Thank you prh47bridge. I don't suppose you or anyone else knows a link to this LGO ruling? Would be good to be able to see this in full, and be able to show them it if required.

Thanks again for that - hopefully the principal behind the ruling is the same regarding parents' expectation, regardless of the chronological year aspect.

I agree with what PRH has said over the offer of a place however I have one concern. Do you have anything in writing that shows that you were applying for a year 1 place when you knew that your child should have been in year 2 and that the school were very clear that this was the case.
If you have not then this could become very messy, as they will undoubtedly argue that the school did not realise and that it is all your fault, you gave misleading information, which can result in the place being withdrawn. Obviously if you do have suitable written information then the school is not in a position to defend themselves other than saying they made a mistake about who they could take.
Having said that it has always been the case that it is up to the school to decide which year group a child should be in and I suspect this is more to do with funding than being seen to do the right thing.
The other question is, do you still have the place at your current school? If you do then please make sure that you tell the school that you currently intend for your child to continue in September in year 2 because otherwise you might end up with no school.

We were very clear on the original application that the need to repeat Year 1 was our main reason for applying, so provided they haven't 'lost' this, it is in black & white. (They also informed us that they have withdrawn the offers to the only two other families who also applied for places outside their chronological year, so I do not think they are trying to blame us). Thanks for the advice about our current school, will tell them.
Anyone out there got any pointers on how best to set out an appeal letter please? Maybe that was covered in another thread we haven't found?
Thanks.

Just as an aside, have you checked that the secondary school will accept your child outside of her chronological year? It can happen that a child in this situation at primary has to jump straight to year 8 in secondary ( usually to do with funding them all the way to gcse at 16) .

Your child would also be sitting Sats in year 5, unless you intend for them to jump a year in a few years time?

Thank You for your replies.

Nightmare: I know this sounds a bit spineless of us, but If they can still force an appeal anyway, we are reluctant to antagonise them with a demand for reinstatement - especially as if we win, we would like to be on the best terms possible, rather than taking our child somewhere we have gained a place against their wishes, and may be treated as pariahs. Thanks for advice on layout and structure, we will use this.

Talking: Ironically we received a letter from them a week before withdrawal making us aware that if the child wanted to go to a secondary school outside the Trust the repetition of a year may cause problems. If we were happy for her to carry on within the secondary school on the same site (which we are), this should not be a problem.

Titchy: The Sats implication was brought up, and we suspect is more of a concern for the performance results of the school than for us - we are not pushy, and our concern is with the current educational needs more than anything else.

You won't antagonise them by pointing out their responsibilities under the Admissions Code, any more than you will antagonise them going to appeal. They will save themselves time and money if they give you the place without any need for an appeal.

By the way, one minor correction to SchoolsNightmare - the reference is to paragraph 1.50 of the 2010 Admissions Code (which is the correct version of the code for admissions this year).

Just to update everyone, we lost the appeal which didn't happen until Monday.
After telling us we would get an appeal within a couple of weeks & us rushing our statement in, it turned out that it couldn't be convened until the funding was confirmed - which didn't happen until mid-July.
And it seems that was the key. Because they didn't have funding at the time of making the offer, they were not a legal entity & therefore it could be withdrawn anytime. Furthermore the York case quoted didn't apply because of this, so we had no legal fallback. They didn't have anything in their admissions code specific to not allowing split age groups, but because they didn't have anything saying they would either, they could not be picked up for a breach of that.
So despite the fact that the phone call withdrawing the place indicated there was no way around (and was probably worded like that to get rid of us), when we insisted on a meeting they turned on the charm and gave us hope - probably knowing all along we were wasting our time.
The fact that the first meeting was offered at 3pm to parents of school age children was not designed to be awkward apparently.
Their initial email when asked why they had withdrawn the place, specified that the decision was made after discussion with the DofE & Board of Trustees. After we had put in the appeal papers I discovered one of the trustees was a neighbour - he knew nothing about it. Strangely enough this 'lie' (deliberately included to shore up their withdrawal in our opinion) had dropped of the schools statement at the appeal hearing, and the decision was apparently made after consulting with the DofE only!
Despite us pointing this false claim out (puts validity of other evidence in question surely) - despite the fact that had we not pursued a meeting we would have been unaware of being able to appeal - despite them having our statement for two months before we saw theirs - despite them not telling us the appeal could not go ahead until funding was agreed, until we made enquiries as to the delay - despite the fact that we were open and honest the entire way through and had supported the new school right from the very beginning.............you get the idea.
We feel their was an entire hidden agenda right from the point the new headteacher was appointed, and they hid behind a legal loophole themselves. We now have the pleasure of dropping our eldest off at a school we can see from our window, and then driving our youngest 5 miles away instead of walking them both in and picking them up together.
Go Figure!! as they say....We have the moral highground, but it still grates that they get away with this.
Thanks for all your help anyway folks.

I am sorry it didn't work out for you, sounds awful.

I would refer this to the Education Funding Agency and see what they make of it. The school must have been a legal entity otherwise it could not apply for funding. The charitable company that runs the school must have existed. However, until funding was approved they should not have been offering places. At the very least, they should have been making it clear that any offer was conditional on funding.

Given that some maintained schools accept children out of their chronological year I find it difficult to believe that the DfE has told this school that they can't do this. I would want to see something in writing from DfE.

I can't guarantee that a referral to the EFA will get you anywhere. I don't know how their approach to academy appeals compares to the LGO's approach to maintained school appeals, but I think it is worth a try. As with the LGO, they can't re-hear the case but they can look at whether the appeal was conducted correctly. That includes looking at whether the panel considered matters they should have ignored or ignored matters they should have considered. If you have any evidence of the school presenting false evidence to the hearing you should include that in your referral.

I think that I would agree with PRH, a letter to the EFA is worth it, because they are really new into this area of responsibility and they may feel that they need to be seen doing something.
Another question that I would be asking is where exactly they got their independent appeal panel from, as it sounds very much like they used a "tame" panel to come to the right conclusions.
I would be interested in how they can offer places to some pupils but not others. From what you have said they did not have a funding document in place and therefore did not exist. If they could not offer a place to you, then they could not offer a place to anybody, no matter what year group they were in until the funding document was in place. To me that says that only after mid July when they had the funding scheme in place could they draw up a list of applications and decide which should be given places based on their admission criteria. Quiet whether you fit the admission criteria only a detailed look at the admission criteria and exactly what was in the EFA funding document would reveal. The appeal panel have to consider whether the place should have been offered and that means the altered circumstances that they say existed in not having the funding arrangement in place.
I would have to say that I also do not agree with the argument that because they did not exist legally the York judgment is not appropriate. The whole point in the original case is that the head teacher went out on a limb, did something that they should not have done and then paid the consequences when they could not withdraw the places. That is exactly what the head teacher has done in your case, they made a mistake in believing they could offer places at that specific time, they believed that they could offer your child a place in year 1 even though they were chronologically year 2. Seems to me that the panel were wrongly advised over the case and therefore even more reason to see what the EFA have to say about it.

Thanks for that, nice to know we're not alone in wondering why.

We were wondering whether to refer it, but it gets to a point where you feel you've got no oomph left, and everyone tells you that the appeal decision is final - I have to say, we even have some sympathy for the panel who were very nice to us, and had to apply an appeals code to a situation which it wasn't designed for as best they could.
The school did cover themselves in the original offer letter with a last line stating that all offers were subject to gaining funding (or something similar). Though, as we pointed out to the panel, this was not seen as something that would cause us concern at that time, as there was lots of interest, and presumably they wouldn't offer places if they weren't confident.
The panel were from a company in Enfield, I think that's far enough away from our area (Kent) to be independent - when they introduced themselves they were from the London area mainly.
The other parents got the 'firm' offer by way of a letter in mid July as a follow up to the earlier offers.
We agree wholeheartedly about the York case still having a bearing and said so - but to no avail obviously. It probably won't be a surprise to any of you that we haven't heard from the school since the appeal.

Now how on earth do we put this whole sorry saga into a concise letter that gives the EFA an full understanding of what's occurred.....Oh my head!!!!