Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the unsuitability of the school transport the Council provides for the complainant’s daughter. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process so we cannot question the merits of its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs A, complained about the unsuitability of the school transport the Council provides for her daughter.

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. We cannot question whether an organisation’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 information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. Mrs A has had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making my final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs A told us she moved address to reduce the length of time required to transport her daughter to and from school. However, she said the bus provided by the Council takes one hour and twenty minutes to do the journey. She told us the journey exhausts her daughter and causes her to miss a lot of school due to migraines induced by extreme tiredness.
8. The Council considered Mrs A’s complaint. It considered the Statutory Guidance for local authorities and its own policy when making its decision. Mrs A wants the Council to provide solo transport for her daughter until the end of term and to then be picked up last on her route. The Council consulted with its Special Educational Needs Assessment Team (SENAT). SENAT’s view is Mrs A’s daughter’s needs are not sufficient for her to require solo transport in the form of a taxi. The Council also considered alternative options. It considered whether changes could be made to the journey times but decided changing pick-up times would present a challenge for the others who use the same transport. The Council said Mrs A could reconsider the school’s suggestion of an earlier finish time for her daughter.
9. 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 Council reached its decision. In this case there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process. This is because it has considered the points Mrs A made, the Statutory Guidance, its own policy and other options when making its decision. This is the process we would expect it to follow.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process so we cannot question the merits of its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman