Summary: Mrs T complained the Council had failed to provide home to school transport for her youngest child, W, which she thought was unfair. There was no evidence of Council fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs T, complained the Council had not given her youngest child, W, free (or subsidized) transport from home to school. She asked the Ombudsman whether the Council had acted with fault by not doing so.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I spoke to Mrs T on the telephone and considered the information she submitted with her complaint. I sent Mrs T and the Council a copy of my draft decision and took comments made into account before issuing a decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Council provides free home to school transport to a child’s nearest geographical school where it is outside the statutory walking distance, which is, broadly, 2 miles for a child under eight and 3 miles for a child over eight. If the nearest school is not able to offer a place, the Council provides transport to the next available school that can. There are different rules for low income families and children with special educational needs but this does not apply in Mrs T’s case. The Council is not obliged to provide subsidized transport for other children so I am not considering this.
6. Mrs T did not apply to her closest school for her eldest school-aged child U, when she moved into the area. When the second child, V, needed a school place, she only expressed one preference; for the school U attended rather than the closest school. When W needed a school place, she applied to the closest school.
7. By this point, U had transitioned to secondary school and was getting free school transport.
8. W got a place at the closest school and would have received free home to school transport. However, when Mrs T applied for a place for V, V did not get in as the school was full. Mrs T says it would be impossible to have two children at two different schools. However, as both U and W would then have free transport, it would, on the balance of probabilities, only be a challenge to get V to school.
9. Mrs T turned down a place for W at the closest school and applied for a place at the school V attended. W got a place but was then not able to get school transport as it was not the closest available school.
10. Mrs T says V and W had to start their journey on an early bus and did not return home until nearly 5pm. This is regrettable but, in places where the population is scattered, so not every area has its own school, it is probably inevitable. This is not evidence of Council fault. It was still the case that if W attended the closest school, W would receive free home to school transport.
11. Mrs T said she should have been given advice to apply for the nearest school as soon as she moved into the Council’s area – that way she would have had school transport for V and W. However, it is a parental responsibility to provide education (in accordance with the Education Act 1996) and not the Council’s. This means parents need to decide which school should provide education to their children or home educate instead. Mrs T could have asked the Council’s school admissions team how to obtain free school transport if this was important at the time.
12. Although Mrs T was concerned about getting taken to court as W had missed some days of school, we would not criticise Councils taking action in relation to children missing education. Also, going to court was an opportunity for Mrs T to explain that transport issues were the only thing that affected W’s attendance. There is no evidence of Council fault.

Back to top

Final decision

13. There is no evidence of Council fault and I have closed the complaint and my file.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman