Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs 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. Mrs 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 Mrs 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. Mrs X asked the Council to provide her son, Y, who has special educational needs, with free transport to school. The Council refused. It said the distance from home to school was less than two miles. It said there were no significant medical or mobility needs which affected Y’s ability to walk to school.
7. Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision. She said Y had an Education Health and Care Plan and became tired during the walk to school. She said Y’s father could not help with transport to school because of work.
8. The Council considered Mrs X’s appeal at the final stage of its process. Mrs X attended the appeal.
9. The Council explained why it had refused Mrs X’s request. Mrs X had the opportunity to present her case and the panel asked questions. The panel considered the information it was presented with. It decided the Council had properly applied its policy. The panel noted there was no medical evidence in support of Mrs X’s appeal and Y’s school had not reported him arriving at school tired. The Council’s policy said work commitments were not an exceptional circumstance warranting transport. The Council refused Mrs X’s appeal

Assessment

10. Mrs 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.
11. The evidence available shows the panel reached a decision it was entitled to, taking into account the information it was presented with. 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 Mrs X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs 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