Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr J’s complaint about an incident relating to his son’s home to school transport. This is because the injustice arising from the incident complained of was not significant, and it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr J complains about an incident relating to his son’s home to school transport. He is not satisfied with the Council’s explanation or that systems are in place to prevent a similar incident happening again.

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:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the information Mr J provided with his complaint. I gave Mr J an opportunity to comment on my draft decision before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. The Council is responsible for arranging the transport between home and school for Mr J’s son, S. S has an assistant for his journeys. On one occasion, the Council told the assistant that S would not be going home that evening, and provided a different address for the taxi. The assistant queried this and found that it was wrong. S was supposed to go home as normal.
5. S arrived home safely, so the fault did not cause any injustice. But Mr J was concerned about what had happened. He complained to the Council.
6. The Council established that an officer had muddled two students in giving the instruction about S’s transport. It said “call handling and communication procedures between services are now being reviewed to minimise any similar risk happening again”.
7. Mr J is not satisfied with this response. He does not think the Council has been sufficiently transparent about what happened. But the Council cannot share information about the other student involved, or about any disciplinary action taken against staff. Neither could we.
8. And we would not expect the Council to do more than it is already planning to do, to reduce the risk of a similar incident happening again. So further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the injustice arising from the incident complained of was not significant, and it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman