Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide free school travel for the complainant’s daughter. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the way the Council’s decision was reached.

The complaint

1. The complainant, to whom I refer here as Mr Z, says that the Council failed to follow the correct travel appeal process by not appointing an independent person for a travel appeal panel and not providing comprehensive reasons for its stage 2 decision. Mr Z complains that when making its decision the Council failed to consider that his daughter, to whom I refer here as A, requires to attend a grammar school for academic and health reasons. In his view the closer secondary school which offered her a place would not be suitable.

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. 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr Z and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and the Department for Education Home to school travel and transport statutory guidance (Statutory Guidance).

Back to top

My assessment

6. In February 2021 A was offered a place in the nearest secondary school, which is within a walking distance from her home address. This offer was not accepted by Mr Z as he considers the school would not be suitable for A, who has been offered a place at a grammar school. The Council refused Mr Z’s application for a free travel pass on the premise that the School was much further from the home address. Mr Z appealed from the Council’s decision.
7. I established that in the stage 1 of Mr Z’s appeal the decision confirming the original refusal to grant A a free travel pass was taken by a senior Council Officer. The Stage 2 appeal panel consisted of 3 Council Officers who had not been involved in the case prior to the hearing. This is in line with the requirements for the travel appeal process specified in the Statutory Guidance.
8. Both stage 1 and stage 2 travel appeal responses provide specific reasons for the Council’s decision refusing A a free travel pass.
9. The core of the dispute between Mr Z and the Council is A’s eligibility for a free travel pass and specifically whether grammar schools should be considered as a separate category of eligible schools. These matters are regulated by law, which is reflected in the Statutory Guidance. The Council is bound by the legislative framework.
10. Mr Z suggests that even if grammar schools were not treated as a separate category of the educational settings, A should be granted free transport on a discretionary basis. Provided we are satisfied that the Council followed the appropriate process when making its decision, we would not be looking at the merits of this decision.
11. I established that the appeal process was correct and complied with the Statutory Guidance. It is therefore unlikely that we would find fault in the way the final decision was reached.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Z’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault in the way the Council’s decision was reached.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman