Summary: Mrs X complains the Council and the school transport appeal panel unfairly refused school transport for her son to primary school. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault by the Council or the school transport appeal panel.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complains the Council did not properly consider her appeal for school transport for her son.

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 have considered the complaint and the copy correspondence provided by the complainant and her representative. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the information the Council provided. I have also invited the complainant and her representative to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs X asked the Council for school transport for her son who was in year 1 at primary school. The Council’s officer panel refused her application in November 2018. It wrote to explain that its travel assistance policy criteria stated that the child must attend their nearest appropriate school for transport purposes and must be living more than the statutory distance of
• 2 miles for children less than 8 years of age, and
• 3 miles for children over 8 years of age.
6. In Mrs X’s case, her son was not attending the nearest appropriate school, which it named. The Council said that it had no duty to provide transport and it was the parents’ responsibility to ensure their child was able to get to and from school. The Council provided information about public transport and The Vacant Seats Payment Scheme.
7. Mrs X’s representative appealed further on her behalf to the appeal panel made up of Council members. Her grounds were that she wanted her son to attend a faith school and his older sibling was already attending the school. She received school transport assistance and travelled to school by taxi. She also said that another child had their appeal upheld for the same reasons.
8. At the appeal hearing Mrs X and her representative attended. In addition to their written grounds Mrs X explained why her family preferred the faith school her son attended as opposed to the faith school which was the nearest appropriate school. The panel asked questions of the Council’s representative and of Mrs X. Mrs X said her family did not have a car and she and her husband were unemployed.
9. The panel considered the appeal in private. The panel considered the Council had correctly applied the home to school transport policy. It then considered whether Mrs X’s grounds were strong enough that the panel should uphold the appeal using its discretion. It decided by a majority of 4 out of 5 to dismiss her appeal.
10. The panel wrote to Mrs X and explained that it considered the grounds she raised, but it was parental choice that she sent her son to the preferred school. It said there was no evidence that the nearest appropriate school could not meet her son’s needs.
11. I asked the Council why Mrs X’s older child had school travel assistance. The Council has confirmed that when Mrs X applied for school place for her older child the preferred school was the nearest school with a space, and therefore they met the distance criteria for transport.

Analysis

12. I have not seen evidence of fault by the Council or the panel. There is no apparent fault in the panel’s decision making. It followed the correct procedure when considering the appeal and asked relevant questions. It took account of relevant policy and other factors when considering its decision. Therefore, as I explain at paragraph 2, I cannot criticise the merits of that decision.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman