Lost appeal - help....

[NotQuiteSoOnEdge]

I'm hoping I can reach the appeal experts who were so kind as to help me prepare my appeal. I don't know how to link my previous thread.

I've heard yesterday that I lost my appeal. 60 appeals were heard and 3 upheld.

I'm in shock, as is my DS's school. We are finding it hard to understand how there are three cases 'worse' or more compelling than his. I have a consultant psychiatrists letter explicitly stating that due to the small size of the school in question, the nature of the buildings themselves, and her own experience of the pastoral care offered there, that it will be actively detrimental to his mental and emotional health not to attend. It is the only school like it in the city.

I was in my hearing for one hour. They asked a multitude of questions that I was fully open answering, and they didn't challenge my answers, except in one instance, which I was able to explain what steps I had taken to ensure my information was correct.

I came out feeling that I had done as well as I possibly could, and that the panel were thorough and very interested in his story. I'm honestly feeling sick with shock. I know you aren't supposed to count your chickens etc, but I can't see how this went wrong.

What do I do now? Can you appeal an appeal??

Just catching up with the thread, as I replied by PM.

I agree with prh. The fact that the psychiatrist’s letter merits only a passing reference (half a sentence) is, in my view, a strong basis for a challenge. The letter takes several paragraphs to sum up what you told the panel but makes no attempt to sum up the psychiatrist’s letter. In the absence of any clear evidence that they took the psychiatrist's letter on board, you can conclude that they didn’t and that’s a procedural flaw. It’s pretty outrageous to decide that they know better than a medical professional, but the letter implies (if only by omission) that they didn’t even examine what s/he had to say.

Take prh’s advice and pursue this.

Thank you prh45 and panel.

I will go back to my research.

What happened to Tiggytape?

I've only been lurking, because I don't sit on panels anymore, but I'm flabbergasted, really, and can only recommend that you listen to those who have advised you to take this further.

I agree.

There is essentially no summing up. It parrots your arguments back to you, but gives no substance to how they made their decision. One would expect rebuttals such as "the allocated school could be expected to cope with ..." etc. There is no evidence there that the panel deliberated at all.

The schools case doesn't look that strong either. I would take this further, as advised below.

I think Tiggytape has left the building. I haven't seen her for a while and most of her posts seem to have been deleted.

If you want to go for judicial review, you need to move quickly: usually the time limit is 3 months, but there is case law that suggests in admission cases they apply a shorter time limit due to the potential disruption to the schools in question. You would need a formal pre-action letter and it's probably best to have that drafted by a lawyer: Simpson Millar specialise in admissions and may be a good bet.

You do need to bear in mind that if you start proceedings it would be expensive unless you qualify for legal aid in your own right. However, it's just possible that a pre-action letter on its own would persuade them at least to allow a rehearing.

.

Unbelievable poor response which in no way meets the requirements in the admission appeal guidance. I would suggest that the response that you were immediately sent says that the clerk and the panel simply have not carried out their responsibilities appropriately.
As PRH says the fact that they have allowed 3 appeals, actually strengthens your case because they have simply not taken into consideration properly the medical evidence. They would almost for sure have got away with admitting no one as being just about reasonable. Now they are going to have to explain to the Ombudsman how three other appeals were more prejudiced than yours, which is difficult to believe.
I would contact the Ombudsman tomorrow. However out of respect to the school (and to give them the opportunity to put this right) I would also email the clerk and head teacher and say that the response is unacceptable in not explaining the reasons, that they appear to have ignored the medical advice and that you are reporting this to the Ombudsman as maladministration. It might just make them think, though I might also be deluding myself of their ability to see sense in this matter.

I've been a lurker and am just gonna smacked on the op behalf!!

Is it just complete prejudice against mental health- as in "its not real a psychiatrist will write what the parent wants"

Sorry OP that's awful. I know you will keep on going and with the best advice - but it's not fair that you have to.

Hoping the LGO pulls them up on this and your son gets the opportunity of a fair hearing (not that you should have to).

Please keep us in the loop as I want to know that this can and will be righted.

Hello all. I bring a small update.

My decision letter arrived last Tuesday, 21 days after my hearing and 14 days after the final hearing was held.

It, as we have established, failed to properly consider all the evidence, failed to show how they reached their final decision, and the letter itself arrived outside the time limits of the admissions code. As a result, their decision appears unreasonable, even nonsensical and baffling.

One major worry has been resolved. DS had ADHD meltdowns over even the idea of visiting his allocated school, but his SENCO took him out of school herself to visit it. As a result he attended their induction day, and seemed OK. It's a great relief to know that at least come September he will actually go to a school, rather than go into a screaming meltdown and refuse to leave the house.

It is still very much the wrong school for him though. Last week my exhaustion triumphed and I dissolved into immobility. I wanted it all just to stop. However, I've pulled myself together, and today I filled out the online complaint form for academy appeals and submitted it.

Their acknowledgement email asks that any further info is emailed to them separately. I figured I'll put my complaint on here, and see what you think, and send a supplementary email if it's needed. Hope that's ok.

I feel the appeal panel did not follow the appeal code due to the following

1. Not taking evidence into account.

I submitted a letter from DS's Consultant Child Psychiatrist, which contains her reasons why she believes that my choice of school for DS is the correct one. It is a detailed and compelling letter that clearly sets out that school specifically, for reasons unique to school,
is where DS needs to be to protect and ensure DS's mental and emotional health.

My very first question to the panel was 'Have you read the submitted evidence?', to which all said yes. On the basis of that answer I proceeded with my appeal, and referred to the letter as a matter which was taken into account. DS's history of domestic violence and mental health issues are complex and longstanding. It made no sense to waste the panel's time reading the letter to them.

The decision letter I received makes only a passing reference to this evidence as 'we note the supporting evidence from CAMHS'. It does not address the points the psychiatrist made, and neither does it explain on what basis they felt able to dismiss or ignore the views of a medical consultant. According to my decision letter, there is no evidence the panel considered the psychiatrist's submission, and without evidence of this consideration there exists a procedural flaw.

DS has therefore been disadvantaged by this panel by not taking evidence into account.

1. Not giving clear reasons for a decision.

The appeal panel's decision letter is basically an account of what was said during the hearing, followed by three lines.

'Although the Appeal Panel has sympathy for your case, it decided that the facts of the case were not sufficiently strong to outweigh the predjudice that would be caused to the school by admitting any further pupils.'

Not only did they not give clear reasons, they did in fact not give ANY reasons, nor any clear insight into how DS's case was considered by them and their decision reached.

1. The panel did not follow the appeals code.

I attended a two part appeal. Part 1 held on 4th June 2018, and part 2, DS's specific hearing, on the 5th June.

The last appeal (of 60 odd) was heard by the panel on 12th June.

I was given a verbal decision 2 days later by telephone on the 14th June.

On Monday 18th June I phoned the office of the Clerk to say I was unhappy with the decision and needed to have the official letter quickly. I was promised a call-back to discuss this, and was told my letter would be dealt with first.

There was no call back, and no letter.

On Monday 25th June I phoned the office of the clerk, extremely unhappy with their lack of response. My decision letter was emailed to me immediately. This was my first opportunity to find out WHY the appeal had not succeeded, now 20 days after the hearing date.

The following day, the 26th June, the actual letter arrived. It had been posted the previous Wednesday, the 20th, but posted by VELOPOST. It took 6 days to be delivered.

I therefore believe that the appeal was not carried in a suitably timely or responsive manner. For parents who are anxious, or who find, like myself, that they need to take matters a step further, this delay is unconscionable and unfair. The need to establish a suitable school place by September, for an emotionally vulnerable child, is overwhelming in itself.

The admissions code was therefore not followed by failing to meet communication deadlines in an appropriate manner or timescale.

1. The Wednesbury Principle.

This last point is regarding irrationality and unreasonableness. The Wednesbury principle states

'A reasoning or decision is Wednesbury unreasonable (or irrational) if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made it.'
(Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223).

I have not had a single person, either family, friend or professional, who has read the evidence say that they think this decision is reasonable.
In the event, the appeal panel upheld 3 appeals, meaning they had 3 children they felt had a stronger, more compelling claim than DS's. I find it impossible to imagine how this could be true. If they had refused all appeals, on the basis that they literally couldn't fit another child on site, that's one thing. But as 3 appeals were upheld there is no question but that DS's should have been.

I therefore find the panel's decision Wednesbury Unreasonable, i.e. not the decision anyone reasonable would have made.

I respectfully ask that my evidence is reviewed and this matter is given proper consideration.

This post was edited by MNHQ

All your responses to my letter have gone into this, and I thank all of you very much. Please do let me have any comments. I'm going to post one last bit below, which was my answer to the final question on the complaint form.

How has this affected the outcome of the appeal?

The outcome of the failures detailed above is that our appeal was not upheld, and I believe that if the code had properly been followed and applied, in the spirit of balancing predjudice between a school and a vulnerable child, that the panel would and should uphold the appeal.

DS has been seriously disadvantaged by not having his appeal upheld. His mental health has deteriorated with the stress of not having a suitable school place for September.

The way the system works, it is coming up to 12 months since the admissions process began. The wait from the October deadline to the March 1st National Offer Day, was hard enough. Then the blow of finding out we didn't get any of our preferences, and had in fact got a school DS is very ill suited to.

Then we appeal, another long stretch till June, still not knowing and now very concerned that we won't have a school DS will be safe at. I do a lot of research and organise letters. DS's psychiatrist is concerned enough for DS's mental and emotional well-being that she wrote a detailed, comprehensive letter outlining her concerns. This was not a tick-boxing, whatever mum says, letter. It is categorically a professional letter from a Consultant Psychiatrist in which she explicitly states why THIS school, and no other will suit. My shock at realising this letter has been treated as if it doesn't exist is immense.

So now, I feel absolutely furious and frustrated and exhausted. The handling of the appeal, and the quality of the panel's response and decision, have been so poor, that I have lost my faith in the appeals system. The system is there precisely to ensure students such as DS are not disadvantaged, but it has failed one of the most disadvantaged of them all.

You've got your son's name in that. I've asked Mumsnet to edit it and remove it.

Thank you prh47. I thought I'd got them all. Has it gone? I can't see it anywhere.

Yes, MN have edited both your second and third posts and removed his name.

I will read this properly and respond later.

prh47bridge, would it be possible to respond publicly?

I am in a similar situation but with a Catholic school and I would love to hear any comments.

I think you have made the points necessary well. You do need to ensure that you copy in the medical letter as a minimum to go with your letter, so that the person handling the appeal can see the strength of the contents of the letter and you don't waste time being asked for it.

The area where the issue is weakest is not so much with the strength of the evidence but with the definition of what is reasonable. For it not to be reasonable it has to be completely perverse and irrational and that is a high barrier. If the admission authority can in their written notes (which the clerk should have taken and kept) show that the panel did specifically consider the medical letter and dismissed it, then the person considering the appeal could potentially consider that the decision taken was within the realms of being possible based on the evidence. This is hopefully however where the three pupils who succeeded at appeal will be helpful in showing the irrational nature of your decision against the three successful appeals.

Sorry for the delay - blame England winning a penalty shootout!

I agree with Admission. You have set out the important points clearly.

If the LGO agrees that the panel got this wrong the most likely outcome is that they will recommend a further hearing with a fresh appeal panel. You might want to suggest that this is a case where they should consider recommending that your son is admitted without a further hearing as the successful appeals mean it will be harder for you to win as the prejudice to the school will be higher. I doubt the argument will succeed but it is worth a try.

Might also be a good idea to ask MNHQ to edit out the initials of the school twice in your post of 16:38 - it's not a very common combination of letters and in conjunction with the fact that you mention the PAN and the planned change in PAN and a couple of other details it makes it obvious which school you are talking about.

I don't blame you for being desperate to get him in. Last autumn I went to the open day of that school and the nearby "normal" comprehensive to work out how worried I need to be when the time comes for the 2019 admissions round. The answer was "very very worried indeed" and the issues my eldest has are very mild in comparison to your descriptions.

Good luck.

Is now the right time to also approach MP? Our local MP was fantastic in our school situation. Sometimes it can help add extra pressure. You followed the correct process to appeal, but that appeal was handled incorrectly.

In our case (SEN Special school provision) the MP involvement really helped.

@Imchlibob
Thank you for pointing that out. How do I ask MNHQ to take it out and replace with just the word School?

Click on "Report" by the post (or posts) concerned. A simple form will appear. Put what you want them to do in the message box.

Is now the right time to also approach MP?

Most MPs are worse than useless on admissions matters. In this case it is possible an MP might be able to persuade the admission authority to do the right thing but it is a long shot. The LGO is the primary route at the moment.

Glad to see the identifying acronym has been removed. I'd be grateful if you would update the thread further as your case progresses as I may well be in your shoes next year.

FriendlyFlicka - it may be simpler if you start your own thread, so that we can talk about your situation distinct from OP’s.