Summary: Mrs X complains of fault in the way the Council decided not to offer free home-to-school transport for her son, Z, causing him to miss out on this. There was fault by the Council because an officer who assessed the route’s safety sat on the panel hearing Mrs X’s appeal. She has avoidable uncertainty whether a panel acting without fault would have upheld her appeal. The Council will arrange a fresh appeal heard by a panel with no previous involvement in assessing the route or deciding her application or appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, says the Council wrongly measured the distance from the family home to the school Z attends as under three miles, not measuring to the front door of her home when it does this for others;
2. She also says the Council wrongly decided the route from the family home to the school is safe; and
3. Mrs X says a member of the panel that heard her appeal also conducted the safety assessment of the route.
1. Mrs X says Z has lost free school transport as a result.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read Mrs X’s complaint and spoke to her on the telephone. I checked the government’s school transport guidance and made written enquiries of the Council. I considered the Council’s response and the documents and photographs it provided. I shared a draft of this decision with both parties and invited their comments. I received none.

Back to top

What I found

Context

7. Since 2008, the Council has assessed two routes between the area where Mrs X lives and the school Z attends. It found one is “unavailable”, which means it is unsafe for walking in layman’s terms. It found the other route is “available”, which means it can be walked in reasonable safety. The Council has measured the distance between Mrs X’s home and the school as a few metres under the three-mile threshold in guidance where it would have to provide free home-to-school transport for Z.

Complaint a): Measurement

8. Responding to my enquiries, the Council gave details of the standard systems it uses to measure distance. These measure from the centre of a house. Such systems are impartial, and it is standard practice for councils to use them. I have no authority to suggest the Council should use any other system of measurement. I do not find the Council at fault.

Complaint b): Route safety

9. The Council provided copy of the route safety assessment for the “available” route. This considered a range of relevant matters, such as the speed and density of traffic, visibility, and the availability of places to step out of the path of traffic. This is what government guidance requires assessments to do. Mrs X says that Z would have to walk along a narrow single-track road between high hedges in poor light in the winter months, and that this would be unsafe. I can understand why Mrs X takes that view. But that does not mean there was fault in the way the Council assessed the route.

Complaint c): The involvement of the officer who assessed route safety in the appeal panel

10. Records show the officer who assessed the route’s safety sat on the panel hearing Mrs X’s appeal. So, he had been involved in the contested decision. This went against basic principles of good administration. I find the Council at fault.
11. I therefore find Mrs X has avoidable uncertainty whether a panel acting without fault would have upheld her appeal.

Agreed action

12. To remedy injustice caused by fault, the Council will arrange a fresh hearing of Mrs X’s appeal by a new panel whose members have had no previous role in deciding the matter or assessing the availability of the route. It will arrange this appeal to take place within one month of the date of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I have upheld the complaint about the officer’s involvement and closed the case as the Council has agreed to take the action proposed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman