Summary: there is no fault in the Council’s decision to refuse Mr F’s application for school transport for his daughter, G, or his subsequent appeal. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.

The complaint

1. Mr F complains following his unsuccessful application and appeal for school transport for his daughter, G. He believes the Council’s policy is unlawful and the decision is unfair.

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 school transport for his daughter, G. 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. Mr F complained to the Ombudsman.

Consideration

7. The Ombudsman does not decide whether the Council should provide school transport for Mr F’s daughter. 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 to their nearest suitable school. Mr F’s application for school transport was refused because G does not attend the nearest 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 school his daughter attends, although not the nearest, is the school promoted as the natural progression from her primary school;
• all secondary schools are more than three miles from his home, so he believes G qualifies for transport regardless of which school she attends;
• the nearest school is in a different council area and was oversubscribed;
• other families in the area have been given transport.
10. The decision letter following the panel hearing says:
• the Panel considered Mr F’s reasons for requesting transport, but concluded G’s school was a parental preference, chosen in the knowledge there was a closer school to which the Council would have provided transport; and
• there were no reasons for the Panel to provide discretionary transport assistance.
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 Panel’s decision was unfair because he knows other parents in similar circumstances who have been awarded transport. Each application and each appeal is considered on its merits and in private. It is not possible to speculate why another person’s appeal was successful. I am satisfied the Council properly considered Mr F’s application and appeal.
13. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, Mr F said he accepted the Council’s decision was in line with its policy, but he believes the Council’s policy is unlawful. He says he believes G is eligible for transport because the Council has not made arrangements to transport her to the nearest school. He explained that all the school buses go to G’s school, not the nearest school, and G would have to walk for over half an hour to catch a bus to the nearest school.
14. Schedule 35B of the Education Act 1996 defines children who are eligible for school transport. Paragraph 6 says children who live outside the walking distance and who attend a qualifying school are eligible, subject to two qualifications. The first is that the Council has not made any arrangements for boarding the child at, or near, the school. The second is that the Council has not made any arrangements to enable the child to become a registered pupil at a qualifying school nearer her home.
15. The test in the Education Act, then, is whether a council has made arrangements to enable a child to become a registered pupil at a school nearer home, not whether the council has arranged transport to that school.
16. Mr F could have applied for a place for G at the nearest school. She would not have been disadvantaged by the fact the nearest school is in a neighbouring Council area. Based on the applications received for entry in September 2019, his application would have been successful. Had he applied for a place, the Council would have had to provide transport.
17. In Mr F’s case, I am satisfied there was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I have ended my investigation. There is no fault in the Council’s decision to refuse Mr F’s application and appeal. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman