Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide her children with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council has reached its decision and so we cannot question its merits.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, complains about the Council’s decision not to provide her children with free transport to school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Ms X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information she provided. I also gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms X’s two children attend secondary school and she asked the Council to provide them with free transport to school. The Council decided the distance from Ms X’s home to school was less than the required distance of two miles. This is the statutory walking distance for children considered to be from a low-income family – which applied to Ms X. The Council refused Ms X’s application.
6. Councils must apply their transport policy when deciding entitlement to transport assistance. But they also have the discretion to consider exceptional circumstances, and they must have a review or appeal process by which to do so. Ms X appealed against the Council’s decision and provided information in support of her appeal. Ms X felt the walk from her home to school was not safe.
7. A senior officer refused Ms X’s appeal at the first stage of the Council’s appeals process. They decided her application had been properly assessed and the extra information she had provided did not warrant an exception to the Council’s transport policy. The Council identified an alternative route to school which was also less than two miles.
8. An independent appeal panel considered Ms X’s appeal at the second stage of the process. The panel considered information from the Council’s transport policy and information from Ms X. The panel decided the Council had properly applied its policy. It decided there was no automatic entitlement to transport assistance and there were no exceptional circumstances meaning transport should be granted.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and we cannot criticise a decision which is properly made, or intervene to substitute an alternative view. The Council has applied its transport policy and there is no indication of fault in the way it did so. Appeal panels are entitled to make their own judgements on the information before them. Based on the evidence available, it is unlikely an investigation would find fault with the way the Council has acted.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council has reached its decision and so we cannot question its merits.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman