Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has considered his application and appeal for transport to school for his daughter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and so we cannot question the merits of its decisions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the decision not to provide his daughter with free transport to school. Mr X has now bought his daughter a bus pass and is unhappy the Council will not amend the route to the pick-up / drop-off point, which he thinks is dangerous.

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 applied for his daughter to start secondary school in September 2019. Mr X applied for places at three schools – including the closest school to home. Because the Council could not offer a place at any of the three schools, if offered a place at the nearest school with spaces. This is 2.8 miles from Mr X’s home by the shortest available walking distance.
6. Because Mr X did not think the school offered would be a good choice for his daughter, he applied for places at three different schools. The Council offered a place at his revised first preference, which is 6.2 miles from Mr X’s home.
7. Mr X asked the Council to provide his daughter with transport to this school. The Council refused, because she would not be attending the closest school to home – or in this case the closest school the Council could offer a place at. She would instead be attending a school based on ‘parental preference’. The Council said this meant there was no legal entitlement to free transport.
8. 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.
9. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision and provided information in support of his appeal. Mr X explained how he wanted the best for his daughter. A senior officer refused the appeal at the first stage of the process. An independent panel then considered Mr X’s case at the second stage of the appeals process. Mr X attended the appeal.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Mr X has now bought a bus pass for his daughter. But he is unhappy she must walk 1.3 miles to and from the pick-up / drop-off point. He has asked the Council to amend the route, but it has said it will not do this for a non-entitled traveller. Information on the Council’s website says:

“Students will be expected to make their own way (accompanied where necessary) to the nearest scheduled boarding point along which the existing contracted home to school transport vehicle operates. Transport will not be diverted to accommodate non-statutory entitled students”.

13. The Council’s decision is therefore in line with its published information. An investigation would be unlikely to criticise the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and so we cannot question the merits of its decisions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman