Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not providing the complainant’s son free transport to school. This is because we have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision to refuse to provide free school transport.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains the Council refuses to award travel assistance to his son so he can travel to school, on the school bus. He says that his son (Y) has special educational needs (SEN), and the Council has failed to consider this when assessing the application and appeal.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X asked the Council to provide his son (Y) with free transport to the new school he would be attending from September 2020. The Council refused the application because the journey to the school is less than the statutory walking distance. The Council felt there were no exceptional circumstances which would prevent Y from achieving this.
6. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision and provided information in support of his appeal. Mr X explained that Y has severe learning difficulties and could not reasonably be expected to walk to school, either alone or accompanied. Mr X also explained that because of his work pattern, he was unable to take Y to school.
7. The Council considered the appeal and upheld its decision to refuse travel assistance for Y. It explained based on the information provided for the appeal, Y does not have a mobility or SEN need preventing him from making the school journey with or without a responsible adult. It explained that the journey to Y’s previous school had been longer than it is now. It also explained that parents have a responsibility for ensuring their child attends school even if they are working at that time.
8. Mr X requested a Stage 2 appeal. He did not attend the panel but sent written information explaining Y is a vulnerable young person and would be unable to plan and follow a journey alone. Mr X explained that he was unable to accompany Y to school and there were no other individuals to help with this.
9. The panel considered the information it was given. It decided the Council had properly applied its policy, and it is not unreasonable for Y to travel to school accompanied if necessary. The panel said that no evidence was provided by Mr X to confirm Y had any mobility or SEN need that would prevent him from this. They explained that parental responsibility lies with parents to ensure Y attends school.
10. Mr X disagrees with the panel’s decision, but this is not evidence of fault. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body, and we cannot criticise a properly made decision or provide an alternative view. We can criticise a council’s decision only if there was fault in the way it was reached.
11. The Council applied its transport policy and there is no sign of fault in the way it did this. Appeal panels can make their own judgements on the information before them. They need to look at each case on its merits.
12. The evidence available, shows the panel reached a decision it was entitled to, by considering the information it was presented with. It explained its decision to Mr X based on the evidence available, it is unlikely an investigation would find fault with the way the Council has acted.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council has reached its decision and so I cannot question its merits.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman