Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council’s post-16 education transport policy fails to meet its statutory duties. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, complains that the Council’s post-16 education transport policy fails to meet the statutory duty to promote participation in further education in a manner which does not disadvantage students living in rural areas.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered what Mr B has said in support of his complaint and the correspondence he has provided. I have taken account of the statutory guidance published by the government and the Council’s post-16 transport policy. I have also considered Mr B’s response to my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B’s son attends a sixth form in the Council’s area. Mr B complains that the Council’s post-16 transport policy fails to meet its statutory obligations. Specifically, he complains that the Council’s provision of a County Ticket which provides County-wide travel at a cost of £830 per annum discourages rural students from accessing further education because of the cost. He further argues that the fact that rural learners pay the same as those in urban areas, who may have cheaper alternatives available to them, is discriminatory.
5. Mr B wants the Council to provide a more appropriate and affordable post-16 transport scheme which better meets the needs of rural students. He also wants the Council to carry out a new consultation process.
6. In response to Mr B’s complaint, the Council has set out how it believes its post-16 education transport policy meets its statutory obligations through the provision of a college bus network, and a scheme whereby pupils can purchase spare seats on education transport.
7. With regard to the County Ticket, it says the scheme has been suspended due to COVID-19, and no decision has yet been made on whether to reinstate it for the next school year. Mr B says this is not the case. He asserts that the service is currently operating normally.
8. The Council says it will carry out a new consultation exercise when the statutory guidance is reviewed.
9. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part. Having considered the statutory guidance on post-16 education transport and the Council’s post-16 transport policy, I can see nothing to suggest the Council is not meeting the obligations set out. Mr B may disagree with the way it does so, and want it to provide a different service, but that is not indictive of fault on the Council’s part.
10. Neither is the fact that the Council has chosen to charge all users of the County Ticket the same amount. It has the right to make this decision, even if the impact is disproportionate, as Mr B asserts. It is not for the Ombudsman to intervene to substitute an alternative view in the absence of evidence of demonstrable fault.
11. If Mr B disagrees with the Council’s interpretation of the law, he may wish to take legal advice on the options available to him.
12. Given that there is no evidence of fault in the current policy, the Council’s intention to consult when the statutory guidance is next reviewed is reasonable. There are no grounds for the Ombudsman to intervene.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman