Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council is at fault in refusing his application and appeal for free school transport for his children. It is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr X, complains that the Council is at fault in refusing his application and appeal for free school transport for his children.
2. He says:
• He had to send many emails and make many telephone calls to the Council to get information about each stage of the application and appeal process
• It now costs more than £50 per week to get his children to school
• The appeal panel failed to ask him about his income or disabilities

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 that we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered what Mr X has said in support of his complaint and the application and appeal documents provided by the Council.
5. Mr X commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X has 2 children attending different schools on the same site. The site is more than 8 miles from the family home. His daughter is 15 and is now in her final year at her school. His son is 12 and in his first year at his school. To date, Mr X has funded their transport to and from school.

7. Following a recent increase in the bus fare to their respective schools, Mr X applied for free school transport. The Council refused the application and subsequent appeal. Mr X believes the Council is at fault, in that it has failed to consider information about his disability and income.
8. The Council refused Mr X’s application because there is a school closer to his home than the schools his children attend. Mr X accepts the alternative school is closer. But he says the Council should consider his circumstances and provide free transport for his children as an exceptional case.
9. Mr X appealed against the Council’s decision. The Council has a two-stage process to deal with appeals. The first stage is a review of the decision, the purpose of which is to consider whether the Council has applied its transport policy correctly. The second stage is an appeal, at which the appeal panel has the discretion to consider whether the applicant’s circumstances are so exceptional as to warrant departing from the policy.
10. There is nothing to suggest fault in the way the Council decided Mr X’s initial application and Stage 1 review. There is no dispute that the schools Mr X’s children attend are not the nearest designated schools. That being the case, the Council was not at fault in refusing his application.
11. Mr X’s Stage 2 appeal was heard by a panel of officers and a lay person. Mr X attended to make his case in person, in addition to his written submission. The panel decided the circumstances of the case were not so compelling as to merit using their discretion to award free transport.
12. Mr X says the Council failed to ask him information about his income or disability. I have read the clerks’ notes which show he took an active part in the appeal hearing. He advised the panel that he has arthritis in his knees and a neurological condition. And that he takes opioid painkillers for his condition which is particularly bad in the morning. He also advised the Council that he has a blue badge and provided information about:
• The government guidance on free school transport
• The length and dangers of the walking route to his children’s schools
• The increased cost of getting his children to school now exceeds £50 per week
• His wife’s work commitments mean she cannot drive the children to school: and
• He was not told the schools he chose for his children were not the nearest qualifying school for transport when he applied
13. The appeal documents show that Mr X was able to make his case and the panel considered it. It was for him to provide all the information he wanted the Council to consider. In my conversation with him, Mr X confirmed he did not ask the Council for an advocate. Neither did he choose to have anyone accompany him to the panel hearing.
14. My role is to decide whether there is evidence of fault in the way the Council decided Mr X’s application. The Ombudsman does not question the merits of decisions properly taken. The panel is entitled to come to its own judgment about the evidence it hears. There is no evidence of fault in the way it did so.

15. The Council was aware of the information Mr X chose to share with it about his disabilities and the increased cost of getting the children to and from school on the bus. Without evidence of fault, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the decision the panel made.
16. Mr X is also unhappy with the way Council dealt with him during the application and appeal proces. He says it failed to advise him on the appeals process or give him any information. Whilst I understand this must have been frustrating, ultimately Mr X did complete the full process of application, stage 1 appeal and stage 2 appeal panel hearing. So, while we expect Councils to provide information in a timely manner, I do not consider that there is any outstanding injustice to Mr X on this point.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I will not investigate this complaint. It was for Mr X to provide the Council with all the information he wanted it to consider in support of his application and appeal. We are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council considered his application for free school transport for his children.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman