Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide his son with free transport to school. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to use the appeal rights available to him.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision not to provide his son with free transport to school. Mr X says his son is legally entitled to free transport.

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 would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also 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

What happened

4. Mr X asked the Council to provide his son (Y) with free transport to secondary school (School C). The Council refused Mr X’s application. It said this was because Y was not attending the closest school to home.
5. Mr X disagreed with the Council’s decision his son was not eligible for free transport. Mr X said the closest school to home (School B) was over three miles – the distance required for a child to qualify for free transport. Mr X agreed that Y was not attending the closest school to home. But because School B was over three miles, Mr X said that Y was entitled to free transport to School C.
6. The Council responded to Mr X. It explained that for a child to qualify for free transport, they needed to be attending the nearest school to home. The distance from home to school needed to be over three miles. It supported its decision by referring to the Education Act 1996 (as amended). This says that a child is “eligible” for free transport if the distance from home to school is over three miles and:

“no suitable arrangements have been made by the local authority for enabling him to become a registered pupil at a qualifying school nearer to his home”

7. The Council said it had made arrangements “enabling” Y to attend a closer school to home – because Mr X could have sent Y to School B. But because he had chosen to send Y to School C, there was no entitlement to free transport.
8. The Council said that if Mr X disagreed with the Council’s decision he could appeal to its “Regulation Committee Case Panel”. The role of the panel is to decide if the Council has properly applied its policy, and if there are any reasons to make an exception. Rather than using his appeal rights, Mr X contacted the Ombudsman. Mr X does not feel the panel will be qualified to decide his case.

Assessment

9. The Department for Education has produced statutory guidance for council’s on home to school transport. The guidance says that councils should operate a two-stage process for parents who want to appeal against a decision not to provide their child with transport. The second stage involves consideration of the case by an independent panel with no previous involvement in the case.
10. The Council has offered Mr X the chance to appeal to its Regulation Committee Case Panel. When there are appeal rights available, we normally expect a person to use them unless there is a good reason not to. I do not consider that to be the case here. The process the Council operates is in line with the statutory guidance and is the proper mechanism for Mr X to appeal the Council’s decision. If Mr X was then unhappy with the decision reached, he could make a fresh complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to use the appeal rights available to him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman