A Bradford school has been criticised by the Ombudsman over serious problems with its admissions policy.

A report into Thornton Grammar School revealed a catalogue of shortcomings including a failure to comply with the Code of Practice on School Admissions.

And the school's former chair of governors, Councillor Elaine Byrom - who is now chairman of the Council's Education Scrutiny Committee - was criticised for her role when dealing with parent appeals over their children being refused places.

Three parents complained after their children were turned down for places for September 2001 on appeal. A further family said they had been refused the chance of appeal.

Ombudsman Patricia Thomas found maladministration because the appeal panel accepted at face value that the school was full when the fact there were more pupils in the previous intake suggested otherwise. The school didn't provide clear information about the catchment area or how it had been drawn up or conduct the hearing in a neutral location, the Ombudsman added.

She also criticised the way notes from the appeal were destroyed after they were typed up and said that the school's representative, Coun Byrom, should not have taken lunch with the appeal panel members.

But she said, on balance, none of the complainants' children would have secured a place even if procedures had been followed. And today Coun Byrom claimed she had done nothing wrong.

But one of the complainants referred to in the report, Ashfaq Gulab, said he was disappointed at the ruling and would be seeking legal advice to see if he had a civil case.

Mr Gulab, of Dene Crescent, Lidget Green, and his wife Fazia Hussain failed to get their daughter Hafsha into Thornton Grammar and she is currently at Buttershaw High.

"Had the procedures at the school been better we would have stood a better chance."

In the Ombudsman's report, one complainant said she could not understand why the catchment area was changed to include the area between Legrams Lane and Spencer Road. But Coun Byrom, putting the case for the school, said she could not answer parents' questions.

However the report explains that an area where predominantly white people live had been taken out of the catchment area and streets where Asian people live included because the school was acting on advice from the CRE following a complaint. The school's intake of ethnic minority pupils dropped from 55 per cent in 1995/1996 to 26 per cent in 1999/2000 and the governors were urged by the CRE to address this.

Mrs Thomas said: "While I appreciate the school may have had good reasons for not wishing to draw attention to the complaint to the CRE, the failure to explain the school's case properly not only contradicted the code's advice for the need for transparency but also led parents to believe that the process was being manipulated in some way. That was maladministration."

Mrs Thomas also criticised the way the appeal panel - which was all white - was recruited, saying it should reflect the make-up of the local community.

And she said chair of governors at the time, Coun Byrom, was in "conflict" with her roles by representing the school and arranging the appeals.

"The chair of governors had a number of roles in the appeals process; she arranged the appeals and recruited the members of the panel. She decided who should be entitled to a second appeal and also presented the school's case. I would normally have anticipated that someone more divorced from the proceedings would have undertaken these administrative tasks."

Coun Byrom (Cons, Clayton), who as chairman of the Education Scrutiny Committee which scrutinises any actions of the Council executive over education, said she was satisfied they did not do anything wrong. "The report shows the appeal didn't cause injustice to the appellant. I recruited the panel members because I knew who had training."