Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide her son with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council for us to be able to question the merits of its decisions.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the decision not to provide her son with free transport to school.

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)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Miss X’s complaint, information from the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. Councils must apply their transport policy when deciding entitlement to transport assistance. But they also have the discretion to consider exceptional circumstances. They must have a review or appeal process by which to do so.
6. Miss X’s son (Y) is in Year 4. Miss X moved Y to a different school (School Z) because she felt it was better able to meet Y’s special educational needs. Miss X asked the Council to provide Y with free transport to school but it refused. The Council said Y was not attending the closest school to home and so it did not have a duty to provide transport.
7. Miss X appealed the Council’s decision. She explained Y was being assessed for an Education Health and Care Plan because of his special educational needs. Miss X said she did not drive and had two other children at Y’s previous school. Miss X explained the difficulties it would cause if the Council did not provide transport to School Z. Miss X provided information in support of her appeal including information from the NHS and a headteacher.
8. Miss X’s appeal was refused, and she asked for it to be considered at the final stage of the Council’s appeals process. A panel of elected members therefore considered Miss X’s appeal.
9. The Council explained why it had refused Miss X’s request. Miss X had the opportunity to present her case and the panel asked questions. During her appeal Miss X provided evidence that she received Universal Credit and was therefore from a low-income family for transport eligibility. The panel considered the information it was presented with. The panel refused Miss X’s appeal.
10. The panel’s letter to Miss X explained its decision. It said the Council had properly applied its policy. The panel noted that Y did not attend the nearest school to home and there were closer schools with spaces. The panel decided there were no exceptional circumstances which warranted free transport to school. It explained there is extra help available to children from low-income families – but this did not apply to Miss X. It said Miss X could complain to the Ombudsman.

Assessment

11. Miss 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 intervene to substitute an alternative view. As I explain in paragraph 3, we can only criticise a council’s decision if there was fault in the way it was reached.
12. Having looked at the papers for Miss X’s appeal, the panel’s decision letter did contain a mistake. It said the following:

“Under paragraph 3.4 of the Transport Policy it states that: ‘Children above the age of 8 but under the age of 11, from low-income families will be entitled to travel assistance if they attend one of the three nearest suitable schools where they live between 2 and 6 miles (measured by the shortest walking distance) and 6 miles (measured by the shortest walking distance) from the school.’”

13. This is not correct. The above provision only applies to children aged 11-16 from a low-income family. Also, the upper limit of six miles should be measured by motorised route – not walking route.
14. The extra help available to children aged 8-11 from a low-income family is free transport to the nearest school if more than two miles away – as opposed to three miles for children not from a low-income family.
15. The Council’s policy correctly states the extra help with transport available to low-income families. It is only the letter to Miss X which was wrong.
16. But I do not consider the above fault to be significant enough to cast doubt on the Council’s decision making as a whole. The Council has applied its transport policy and there is no indication of fault in the way it did this. Appeal panels are entitled to make their own judgements on the information before them. They need to look at each case on its merits.
17. The evidence available shows the panel reached a decision it was entitled to, taking into account the information it was presented with. The decision letter to Miss X explained the key issues the panel had considered and how it had reached its decision.
18. Based on the evidence available, it is unlikely an investigation would find enough fault with the way the Council has acted to question the decisions reached. We will not therefore investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

19. The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council for us to be able to question the merits of its decisions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman