Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her son’s transport journey time being too long. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the fault has not caused any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains her son’s transport journey time is too long. She says this means her son often arrives at his centre late and is less able to concentrate and engage in the activities.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X’s son, Mr Z, attends a centre. He receives transport which takes him to the centre. Mrs X said the transport for one day is too long due to the route being taken. This results in Mr Z being tired when he arrives at the centre and being unable to fully engage with activities.
6. In response to our enquiries, the Council acknowledged that the total time Mr Z can be in transport can exceed two hours. The Council agreed to review the matter further.
7. The Council confirmed it spoke with the transport provider and agreement was reached to change the route timings. The Council said the transport provider had a verbal agreement with Mrs X over the new timings and that the journeys are working well. The Council said it held a further discussion with the transport provider, and they confirmed they had not been made aware of any further issues regarding the journey.
8. Mrs X acknowledged there had been improvement to the journey times. However, Mrs X said the Council has not confirmed what a reasonable journey time is. Mrs X is concerned that without written confirmation or a written policy regarding transport timings, things will drift back to an unacceptable level again.
9. I acknowledge Mrs X’s concerns, but the injustice is speculative at this stage, especially as Mrs X has acknowledged the timings have improved. Therefore, an investigation is not justified.
10. Further, the Council took appropriate action to review the transport journey and to work with the transport provider to make improvements. The Council is not required to specify what it considers a reasonable journey time as some flexibility is needed to account for conditions outside of the transport provider’s control such as accidents, traffic, or road works. Therefore, we are not likely to find fault.
11. Should the journey time start increasing to an unacceptable manner again, it is reasonable for Mrs X to raise this concern with the council or transport provider if, and when, it happens.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the fault has not caused any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman