Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the decision not to provide his son with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council has reached its decision and so we cannot question its merits.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the decision not to provide his son with free transport to school.

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)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I looked at documents from the Council and gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X and his family moved into the area and applied for a place at the local school for their son. Because the school was full, the Council offered a place at the nearest school with spaces. Mr X asked the Council to provide his son with free transport to school. The Council refused because the distance from home to school was less than three miles – the distance at which a child qualifies for free transport.
6. Councils must apply their transport policy when deciding entitlement to transport assistance. But they also have the discretion to consider exceptional circumstances. They must have a review or appeal process by which to do so.
7. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision and provided information in support of his appeal. Mr X explained how difficult it was for his wife to take their son to school and the logistical problems they faced as a family. An independent panel considered Mr X’s case at the second stage of the appeals process. Mr X attended the appeal. The panel considered the Council’s transport policy and information from Mr X. The panel decided the Council had properly applied its policy. It decided there was no automatic entitlement to transport assistance and there were no exceptional circumstances meaning transport should be granted.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and we cannot criticise a decision which is properly made or intervene to substitute an alternative view. The Council has applied its transport policy and there is no indication of fault in the way it did so. Appeal panels are entitled to make their own judgements on the information before them. The panel reached a decision it was entitled to, taking into account the information it was presented with. Based on the evidence available, it is unlikely an investigation would find fault with the way the Council has acted.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council has reached its decision and so we cannot question its merits.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman