Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council applied its transport policy, and its decision not to amend it. This is because there is no evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision not to amend its Home to School and College Transport Policy. Mr X says the Council’s policy disadvantages and discriminates against children from divorced families. Mr X also says that it has not interpreted the wording of the policy correctly when considering his request for transport. Mr X says that because of this, his children are no longer receiving free transport and would like the Council to change its decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code

Back to top

My assessment

4. After the Council withdrew transport assistance for Mr X’s son, Mr X complained to the Council about how it had applied its policy. Mr X also complained that the policy disadvantaged and discriminated against children from divorced families.
5. Mr X has a 50/50 childcare arrangement with his children’s mother, Ms Y. The policy states that where childcare is split 50/50, transport shall be given from the address of the parent who receives the child benefit. Mr X advised the Council that Ms Y receives the child benefit. We are therefore unlikely to find fault in how the Council applied its policy, as it considered Ms Y’s address as the main residence for transport assistance.
6. The Council considered Mr X’s complaints about its policy at its highest level. It advised Mr X that whilst it acknowledged divorce presents a challenge for families moving apart, getting a child to school remains principally the responsibility of the parents. It advised Mr X that divorce was not specifically mentioned in the legislation for home and school transport and that a change of policy was not required.
7. Whilst I appreciate Mr X’s circumstances are challenging, this does not mean the Council’s actions amount to fault. The Council considered the matter and it decided that no change in policy was required. We are therefore unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision not to amend its policy.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault in how the Council applied its policy, or its decision not to amend its policy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman