East Sussex County Council (24 010 182)
Category : Adult care services > Transport
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 03 Dec 2024
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council's decision to refuse free post 19 home to college transport for her son. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter to justify an investigation.
The complaint
- Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for post 19 Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) college transport for her son. She says the Council has failed to consider her son’s safety.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Mrs X applied for free school transport for her son, Y. Y is over 19 years old and has an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). The Council’s Inclusion Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Travel Panel (the ISEND panel) refused the application. It said Y:
- Appears capable of using public transport, so should be able to learn the route to college and become independent; and
- Should have the funds available to afford to pay for transport to college and he can re-prioritise his spending to afford it.
- Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision. The Council’s Discretionary Travel Panel (‘The Panel’) held an appeal hearing. The appeal hearing minutes show the Panel considered:
- the information provided by Mrs X
- the original decision to refuse the application; and
- the decision of the ISEND panel
- The Panel decided it could not uphold the appeal. It noted that Y’s EHC Plan says he can travel independently on the bus to the town centre. It also says Y wants to be more independent and expand the bus routes he takes. The Panel also noted the details of the bus journey including the route and the frequency of the buses. The Panel understood Y’s disabilities impacted him, but decided this did not warrant the provision of a taxi to and from college.
- In addition, the Panel considered Y’s financial information. It considered there was some flexibility in Y’s finances to be able to afford bus fares and suggested he could apply for a disabled person’s bus pass.
- We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council conducted the appeals process in line with statutory guidelines, considered the relevant information, and its decision appears in line with its policy. The Ombudsman cannot question or criticise the outcome of a council’s decision provided the council has acted without fault in making this decision. Although I accept Mrs X disagrees with the decision, there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it was reached. An investigation into this matter would therefore be unlikely to result in finding fault on the Council’s part.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way it considered her application for home to college transport for Y.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman