Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about home to school transport issues. It is unlikely we could achieve a significantly different outcome than the Council has offered.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, says the Council refused to change the company which transports his son to school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says his son receives free home to school transport. He says the Council contracted this to a company who he believes did not safeguard his son properly. He says they failed to accompany his son across the road. He says this meant he could not trust the transport company and started to transport his son to school himself.
7. In response to the complaint, and since Mr X made his complaint to us, the Council has agreed to change the transport company. It says Mr X has agreed this change.
8. It is unlikely we would achieve a significantly different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we could achieve a significantly different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman