Each year large numbers of parents blame the procedures and those administering them. They may then complain to the ombudsman, or apply for a judicial review. Occasionally, a dispute is referred to the independent adjudicator as provided for in the legislation.

The courts (and ombudsman) have commented on the lack of training of the independent appeal panel members, and of the panel clerk’s lack of knowledge about the admissions appeals code of practice. In one case the clerk allowed the panel to apply the rule about the limit to infant class sizes to a secondary school application. In other cases the clerk mistakenly allowed the panel to consider evidence from the head which was not disclosed to the parents.

Judges and the ombudsman have tried to clarify the codes of practice. They have pointed out that heads and independent panels are both expected to sympathise with the appellants’ desperate keenness to get their child into the chosen school, and take into account the fact that parents will be unsure of the process, and unclear about what is expected of them. A panel’s own procedures should be clear and unambiguous. It must first determine that the procedures and criteria followed by the LEA and school were lawful. Second, it must establish whether the criteria have been faithfully followed. Third, it should ensure that the refusal of a place accords with any statutory reason, and finally, weigh this with the strength of the reasons given by the parent for the preferred school.

The usual ground given by a school is that the admission would “prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources”. Panels would be expected to probe the school’s evidence. They may not interview pupils to see if they are suitable.

The panel should ensure that the school’s evidence has been properly tested. Heads should co-operate by giving evidence that is clear and documented. Any failings should be picked up by the clerk, who should “tactfully intervene”.

The clerk should ensure that no school or LEA official who has advised parents should then present the case against them, and the clerk should not just clarify, but correct, any ambiguity in preceding communications with parents. The panel must then make a simple yes or no decision, based on such evidence as can be reasonably established before and at the hearing. No conditions can be attached such as upholding an appeal until further evidence is provided.

The final test to be applied by any of the decision-makers throughout an admissions appeal is “a balance of probabilities”, which the ombudsman has described as a 51 per cent certainty.

While heads and governors play no formal part in the appeal process they have a duty, as well as a vested interest, in ensuring that the clerks and the panels are well-informed and trained.

Chris Lowe is the honorary legal consultant to the Secondary Heads Association, and editor of Croner School Governors’ Manual