Summary: The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault by the Council or the appeal panel in considering Mr X’s appeal for school travel for his daughter.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly consider his request and appeal for free transport to school. He says the Council did not provide maps before the appeal hearing and therefore the independent appeal panel was misled.

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 the complaint and the copy correspondence provided by the complainant. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. I invited the complainant to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X asked the Council to provide free home to school travel assistance for his daughter, A. The Council refused travel assistance. It explained that to receive transport assistance the child must attend their nearest appropriate school for transport purposes and live more than the statutory distance from the school which is
• More than 2 miles for children aged less than 8 years of age
• More than 3 miles for children aged over 8 years of age.
6. The Council said that in A’s case the nearest school to her home address was school 1, but she attended school 2.
7. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision at the first stage of its appeals procedure. He said his calculation was that school 1 and 2 were both over 3 miles away but school 2 was nearer. He said his older child had attended school 2 and received travel assistance.
8. The Council rejected his appeal. It said that school 1, the nearest school, was 2.64 miles from A’s home. School 2 where she had a place, was 2.98 miles away from her home. The Council noted Mr X said that his older child had received travel assistance to the same school A was to attend. However, it explained that it had updated its measuring system, which meant it calculated distance more accurately. The Council also noted that Mr X said his daughter’s route to school 2 which she was to attend, was hazardous. But it said it could only consider whether the route was hazardous if it was the nearest school.
9. Mr X then appealed to the member’s panel in July 2019.
10. The members panel considered Mr X’s appeal in August 2019. Mr X attended the hearing with a representative. The clerk’s notes of the hearing show that Mr X’s representative asked if a map of the routes could have been brought to the hearing. The Council’s presenting officer said she had maps and handed these out. The panel asked if the Council regarded either route as hazardous. The notes appear to show that the Council agreed the route to school 2 was hazardous but that the route to school 1 was not hazardous and was the nearest school. The presenting officer stated of school 1 that “there is the route now that is suitable to walk to the school.” The presenting confirmed there had been problems with the route but “officers went out this came to light and this was rectified.”
11. The clerk’s notes show that one of the penal members said that if the panel had concerns regarding the route they could walk the route [to school 1] and determine if it was hazardous or not. Mr X’s representative said “we have a right to process today. Useful to walk the route for future”. Mr X’s representative further commented on the route to school 1 being alongside a motorway and appearing to cross over or under the motorway without showing a bridge or a tunnel. The presenting officer confirmed she had not walked the route herself, but another officer had.
12. The clerk’s notes show Mr X stated that for several years there had been a school bus from his home area to school 2, because it was accepted there was no safe route to the school. He and his wife did not drive, and they had chosen school 2 as the nearest school because of the bus. His older child had taken the bus and received free school transport. He said that the cost of paying for A’s travel would cause financial hardship. He said that whatever school A went to it was over 3 miles and the safety of the journey was paramount.
13. The chair to the panel asked if Mr X and his representative were satisfied they had made their case and they agreed they had. The panel then consider the appeal in private and discussed the grounds Mr X had raised. The panel noted Mr X’s case that his route indicated school 2 was nearest and that both routes were over 3 miles. It also noted his grounds that both routes were hazardous. The panel discussed the Council’s determination that school 1 was nearest and that it was parental choice that A attended school 2. The panel voted and the vote was split equally with 2 in favour and two against. However, the chair of the panel had the deciding vote and did not uphold the appeal.
14. The clerk to the panel wrote to Mr X confirming its decision. It explained that the chair vote decided the appeal. The panel considered that the Council had used its mapping system to assess the route and this was in line with the Council’s home to school transport policy. It noted Mr X’s points regarding walking along an A road for part of the route “would pose some issues”. However, the panel felt that Mr X’s decision to send A to school 2 was a matter of parental choice. It said it did not consider there were sufficient grounds to set aside the Council’s policy.

Analysis

15. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman that the Council had not provided maps before the hearing and on the day of the hearing had handed out maps that were unclear. In his view these maps had misled the panel members.
16. The Council comments that it would not normally provide maps as part of its defence before a panel hearing. However, it says its presenting officer had made copies of the available route for personal reference and had provided these copies following discussions at the appeal hearing. The Council stated that Mr X and his representatives did not raise concerns regarding the maps or their quality and that they did not request an adjournment to consider the information. The Council also refers to the clerk’s notes which highlight that Mr X’s representative requested that a decision be made on the day of the appeal. The Council considered that the additional information did not have a bearing on the defence the Council was making regarding the transport assessment.
17. I asked the Council about its presenting officer’s responses about the maps as she had not walked the route. The Council confirms that while she had not walked the route, another officer had, and had given her a verbal update before the appeal hearing. She had therefore been able to advise the panel that the route to school 1 existed and had been assessed for hazards. The Council agrees that the route to school 2 was confirmed as hazardous.
18. Based on all the information I have seen I have not found evidence that there was fault by the Council or the panel in its consideration of this matter. The panel made its decision having considered the written papers and Mr X’s and his representative’s verbal comments during the appeal. The panel members considered the grounds raised and there was much discussion regarding the route and potential hazards. However, it came to a decision not to uphold Mr X’s appeal. I note that the decision was split and so I consider that this indicates the panel members gave Mr X’s arguments proper weight. However, the chair’s casting vote meant that the appeal was not upheld. I have not found fault in the decision making and so as I explain in paragraph 2, I cannot question whether the panel’s decision was right or wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have not found fault. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman