Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to deny the complainant’s daughter free school transport. This is because her eligibility can be considered through the Council’s appeal process.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, complains that the Council is at fault in naming a school which cannot deliver appropriate provision for her daughter as suitable for her, thereby denying her free school transport.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr B’s daughter has an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP), issued in advance of transfer to high school in September 2022. In the EHCP, the Council names two mainstream schools, both of which it regards as suitable. It names Mr B’s choice of school on condition that he accepts responsibility for school transport, on the grounds that the alternative school is closer to the home address.
6. Mr B disputes that the closer school is suitable. He contends that it cannot meet the identified needs set out in the EHCP and his choice of school is therefore the nearest suitable school. As such, is daughter is entitled to free transport.
7. Whether the schools named in an EHCP are capable of meeting a pupil’s needs is not a matter for the Ombudsman. The Council has named the school of Mr B’s choice, so the matter at issue is eligibility for free school transport. This is a matter which can be dealt with by way of appeal, and the Ombudsman would expect the appeal process to be used to determine it.
8. The Council initially dealt with Mr B’s representations under its corporate complaint procedure, rather than directing him to the appeal process. It accepts that this was fault on its part and has offered Mr B £200 in recognition of this. This is reasonable in the circumstances.
9. Mr B has now been made aware of the appropriate way to challenge the Council’s decision on school transport eligibility. It would be reasonable for him to do so and there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to intervene.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is an appeal process open to him and it would be appropriate for him to use it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman