Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint that the Council was at fault in refusing her application and appeal for free school transport for her daughter. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mrs A, complains that the Council was at fault in refusing her application and appeal for free school transport for her daughter.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered what Mrs A has said in support of her complaint and the appeal documents provided by the Council.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs A applied for a place for her daughter at a grammar school for admission in September 2019. Her daughter did not reach the required standard in the Council’s test to be regarded as suitable for selective education and the Council refused her application. However, Mrs A obtained a grammar school place for her daughter through the appeal process.
5. Mrs A says that, if her daughter had been successful in the test, she would have been entitled to free school transport. The Council’s school transport policy specifies that, if a pupil does not pass the test and subsequently obtains a grammar school place on appeal, the grammar school will be considered with all other maintained schools when assessing eligibility for school transport.
6. In the circumstances, the Council assessed that Mrs A’s daughter did not qualify for free school transport. Mrs A disagrees with the Council’s decision and used her right to appeal against it.
7. The Council’s appeal policy provides for two appeal stages. At the first stage, the Council reviews its decision against its school transport policy. At the second stage, the appellant may attend an appeal panel to make their case in person. The panel has the discretion to consider whether there are exceptional circumstances which would justify departing from the policy.
8. Mrs A attended the second stage appeal hearing. The panel considered her case and refused the appeal. Mrs A believes the appeal was unnecessarily intimidating and the panel’s decision was wrong.
9. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part. The Ombudsman does not question the merits of decisions properly taken
10. The evidence from the appeal papers and decision letter shows that Mrs A was able to make her case before the appeal panel and the panel considered it. The weight the panel members gave to the evidence before them is a matter for their judgement, not for the Ombudsman. They took the view that the Council’s had properly applied its school transport policy and that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify departing from the policy. There is no evidence of fault in the way they did so.
11. In the absence of fault in the way the panel made its decision, the Ombudsman cannot intervene to criticise the decision or to substitute an alternative view.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman