Summary: there is no fault in the Council’s decision to refuse Mr F’s request for a bus pass for his son, B, or his subsequent appeal. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions made without fault.

The complaint

1. Mr F complains the Council refused his request for school transport for his son, B. He is unhappy with the way the Panel considered his appeal.

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:
• information provided by Mr F;
• information provided by the Council, including the Council’s home to school transport policy and the papers from Mr F’s appeal;
• Home to school travel and transport guidance. Statutory guidance for local authorities published by the Department for Education in July 2014; and
• the Education Act 1996.
5. I invited Mr F and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr F applied for a bus pass for his son, B. The Council refused. Mr F appealed the Council’s decision. The Council has a two-stage appeals process. At the first stage, a senior officer reviewed the decision. At the second stage, Mr F had an opportunity to present his appeal to a panel of three local councillors. Mr F’s appeal was unsuccessful.

Consideration

7. The Ombudsman does not decide whether the Council should provide a bus pass for Mr F’s son. This is the Council’s job. The Ombudsman checks the Council made its decision properly. We check the Council followed its policy, government guidance and legislation; took all relevant information into account; and did not take irrelevant information into account. We cannot question Council decisions made without fault, no matter how strongly Mr F disagrees.
8. Children of B’s age who live more than three miles from school are entitled to free transport. Mr F’s application for a bus pass was refused because he lives less than three miles from B’s school. There was no fault in the Council’s decision.
9. I can see from the papers that Mr F appealed on the following grounds:
• the nearest bus stop to his home is unmarked. Mr F considers the stop unsafe and says that on occasion the bus fails to stop there;
• as a result, B uses a marked bus stop 200m further away. This stop is more than three miles from the school. Mr F believes the Council should measure the distance to the school from the bus stop, not his home.
• Mr F says all the other children using this stop have bus passes, and this makes B stand out;
• Mr F thinks it is unfair he should have to pay for B’s travel when other children using the same route do not.
10. The decision letter following the panel hearing says:
• the Panel was satisfied B was not entitled to free school transport;
• the Panel considered B’s circumstances but decided they did not warrant the Council using its discretionary powers to provide transport even though he was not entitled to free transport; and
• the Panel would contact the Ward Councillors to pass on Mr F’s concerns about the unmarked bus stop.
11. I am satisfied there is no fault in the way the Council made its decision. I cannot question decisions made without fault.
12. Mr F complains the Council would not explain or give examples of cases where it had used its discretionary powers in the past. Each application for discretionary assistance is considered on its own and on its merits. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the exercise of its discretion in Mr F’s case. I would not expect the Council to tell Mr F about other applications.
13. Mr F also complains that while waiting for the hearing with his son in a public waiting area, they were joined by the Appeals Officer but she did not introduce herself. Mr F considers this unacceptable. He says he could have been discussing his appeal with his son and this could have undermined his case. He describes this as unfair and devious.
14. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider what happened, not to speculate about what could have happened. Mr F does not complain that his discussions were overheard or his case undermined. Mr F was sitting in a public area and will no doubt have taken this into account when talking to his son before the hearing. In any case, I am satisfied there was no fault in the way the appeal was held.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I have ended my investigation. There is no fault in the Council’s decision to refuse Mr F’s request for a bus pass for his son, B, or his subsequent appeal. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions made without fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman