Summary: Miss K complains the Council failed to offer her son, L, free transport to the school he attended. There is no evidence of Council fault.

The complaint

1. Miss K complained the Council failed to offer her son, L, transport to the school of her choice. As the school she applied for was very close to the nearest school, she wanted to be able to pay the difference in order that L could benefit from free transport. This is because the Council accepted it would have a duty to provide school transport if L attended his nearest school.

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 considered the information provided by Miss K with her complaint. I spoke to her on the telephone and asked the Council whether the closest school was oversubscribed on offer day or not. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Miss K and the Council and took comments they made into account before issuing a decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Miss K was new to the Council’s area. Her son, L, was starting secondary school in September 2019. When she applied for schools, she only applied to one, which was not the nearest school to her home address. She told the Council that this was because the OFSTED reports on the closest school, and another close school, showed they were not as good as the school she applied to.
6. The statutory guidance explains if a parent chooses a school when there is a vacancy at a school the council deems suitable nearer home, the child will not be eligible for free transport to the chosen school. There must have been a realistic prospect of getting a place at the nearer school at the time places were allocated (Statutory Guidance paragraph 24). The term ‘suitable’ means that they offer the same kind of education – it is not about quality or range of subjects studied.
7. The closest school was not oversubscribed. Therefore, if Miss K had applied for a place, L would have got in. The Council accepts it would then have a duty to provide L with transport to that school. The Council does not have a facility for Miss K to pay for the extra mileage to the school of her choice. This does not mean the Council is at fault.
8. If Miss K received the maximum level of Working Tax Credits, her case would have been treated differently, but I understand this is not the case.
9. There is no evidence of fault in the Council refusing to provide free school transport.
10. Miss K says that at the appeal meeting she was told there were no spaces available at the nearest school so she would have received transport to the school of her choice were she applying now. This assumes the school she applied for would now have spaces. There is no evidence it does have spaces given it is oversubscribed. Further, she did not apply for a place at the nearer school and would not have benefitted from free transport unless she had.
11. Miss K says she does not have an option for L to go to the nearest school in order to obtain free transport as there are no spaces. Miss K is able to apply to the closest school and (if L is turned down for a place) go to appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

12. There is no fault in the Council’s actions and I am closing the complaint on that basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman