Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr C’s complaint that the Council was at fault in refusing his application and appeal for school transport for his son. 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 Mr C, complains that the Council was at fault in refusing his application and appeal for school transport for his son.

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 Mr C has said in support of his complaint and the appeal documents provided by the Council.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr C’s son has special educational needs but does not have an Education Health and Care Plan. He was initially attending his catchment school. Mr C says he was advised by education and medical professionals to move his son to an alternative school. He also says that school staff advised him that his son may be eligible for free school transport.
5. Mr C obtained a place for his son at the alternative school. He contends that this is the nearest available school which can meet his son’s needs. He applied for school transport. The Council applied its school transport policy and refused Mr C’s application. Mr C believes it was at fault in doing so.
6. Councils must have a review and appeal process by which adverse school transport decisions may be challenged. Typically, this will consist of a review of the initial decision by a senior officer, followed by an appeal, at which exceptional circumstances may be considered. Mr C’s application has completed the Council’s process and been refused.
7. Mr C contends that the appeal decision was flawed. He argues that the Council failed to implement its transport policy correctly and failed to take proper account of his son’s circumstances.
8. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr C’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part. It is not for the Ombudsman to take a view on whether Mr C’s son should be granted school transport. That is a matter for the Council. Rather, it is to consider whether the Council’s decision to refuse the application was made in the proper way. Having considered the application and appeal documents, including the clerk’s notes of the appeal hearing and the Council’s school transport policy, I can identify no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.
9. The documents presented to the appeal panel and the verbal presentations gave both parties the proper opportunity to make their case. In addition to his written and verbal presentations, Mr C submitted evidence from professionals in support of his argument that his chosen school was the most suitable for his son.
10. It is clear therefore that the panel was aware of Mr C’s arguments when it made its decision to refuse the appeal. There is no evidence of fault it in the way it did so. The weight the panel members gave to Mr C’s case was a matter for their professional judgement. I recognise that Mr C disagrees with the view they took, but that is not evidence of fault. Without evidence of fault, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the decision, or intervene to substitute an alternative view.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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