Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the home to school transport arrangements for her children. 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. Ms X complains about the home to school transport arrangements for her children.

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 looked at documents from the Council and 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 three children are eligible for free transport to school. This is because the school they attend is over the required distance of three miles. The Council previously provided a ‘feeder’ vehicle from close to Ms X’s home. Her children used this service to reach a pick-up point where they accessed the transport which took them to school.
6. In May 2019, the Council wrote to Ms X and said it would be withdrawing the feeder vehicle. This was because the Council had identified what it considered to be a safe walking route to an alternative pick-up point. This decision followed a recent assessment of the route. The Council had measured the walk to the pick-up point and found it to be just under 1.5 miles. The walk to the next pick-up point (a bus stop) was just over 1.5 miles. The Council considered the walk to both pick-up points to be acceptable.
7. Ms X complained to the Council about its decision. In its response, the Council decided it had properly applied its policy. The route had been assessed by officers who decided it was safe. It could not therefore agree to Ms X’s request to either reinstate the feeder vehicle, or provide direct transport to school.
8. Councils must apply their transport policy when deciding entitlement to transport assistance and the transport offered. But they must also have a review or appeal process for parents to challenge the Council’s decisions.
9. Ms X appealed the Council’s decision and submitted information in support of her appeal. This included concerns about the isolation of the route, lack of lighting, volume of traffic, and narrow roads. Ms X was particularly worried about flooding under a railway bridge - which would make the route impassable. Ms X was also unhappy she had to wait until September 2019 for elected members to consider her appeal.
10. A panel of elected members met to consider Ms X’s appeal in September 2019. Ms X attended the appeal. The panel decided to defer its decision on her appeal until it had visited the route to the pick-up point. The panel visited and assessed the route. It wrote to Ms X with its decision. It decided that taking into consideration the characteristics of a rural county, such as Devon, the route was available for an accompanied child. The panel also decided there were no exceptional reasons to provide alternative transport.
11. The role of the Ombudsman is to look for administrative fault. We are not a route of further appeal. We cannot criticise a council’s decision if there is no evidence of fault in how the decision was reached.
12. Councils can revise the transport they provide to children – and such changes are not unusual. The Council explained to Ms X the reasons for the change in the transport offered. It gave Ms X the opportunity to appeal its decision as required by statutory guidance, and in line with its published policy. Ms X attended the appeal with elected members and had the opportunity to present her case. The evidence shows elected members visited the route. The panel decided it was available for an accompanied child. The statutory guidance says “there is a general expectation that a child will be accompanied by a parent where necessary, unless there is a good reason it is not reasonable to expect the parent to do so.” The panel considered the other reasons for Ms X’s appeal and decided there were no exceptional reasons to agree to her request for revised transport.
13. While I know Ms X disagrees with the panel’s decision, this is not evidence of fault. Appeal panels are entitled to make their own judgements on the information before them. For the Ombudsman to be able to question the decisions taken by the Council, or the panel, there would need to be clear fault in the decision-making process. Based on the information I have seen, there is not enough evidence of fault for the Ombudsman to become involved.
14. If Ms X has fresh information she considers relevant to her complaint, she should send this to the Council. It can then decide if the new evidence warrants revisiting its original decision.

Back to top

Final decision

15. 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