Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to reimburse home to school transport costs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained the Council would not reimburse home to school transport costs from the summer of 2021. Mr X incurred these costs while the Council considered his appeal against the decision not to provide his daughter with free transport to school. Mr X successfully appealed the Council’s decision. Mr X says the Council gave him a “reasonable assurance” it would refund his costs if he successfully appealed.

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

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

What I found

Background

5. In April 2021 Mr X appealed the Council’s decision not to provide his daughter (Y) with free transport to school. The request was made following a change of address. At the time, Y was in year 10.
6. In July 2021 an appeal panel decided to uphold Mr X’s appeal. Mr X asked the Council to refund the money he had spent on a bus pass for his daughter for the summer term. The Council refused Mr X’s request. In its responses it said:
• There was an email from the Council which said “Should the appeal be won we would then be able to discuss the possibility of any refund available.” But this was not a binding commitment to backdate free travel and was not something the officer concerned could do.
• The appeal panel decided the original decision to refuse Mr X’s application for transport was correct. But it decided to provide transport because of Mr X’s circumstances.
• The panel’s letter to Mr X did not say previously incurred costs would be refunded.
• The Council’s transport policy makes no provision for costs incurred to be reimbursed if an appeal is successful.
• The panel’s letter referred to the financial impact on the Council for one year only. This suggested the support only applied for the 2021/22 academic year and not the summer term.

Assessment

7. We will not start an investigation into Mr X’s complaint.
8. While I recognise Mr X’s frustrations, his expectation of a refund seems to mainly flow from an email the Council sent. But it did not commit to a refund – just a discussion about the possibility of one.
9. There is nothing in the Council’s policy or the panel’s decision letter about a refund.
10. The panel also found the original refusal to be correct. But it decided to make an exception to policy and grant transport. So, there was no error by the Council which led to expenditure for Mr X, and which should therefore be refunded.
11. Because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman