Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decisions regarding home to school transport for his children. 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 about the Council’s decisions regarding home to school transport for his three children (F), (G) and (H). The Council has refused Mr X’s application for free transport. He is also unhappy about a lack of spaces under the Council’s ‘spare seats’ scheme. Mr X also complained he had to submit his final appeal to the Council two weeks before councillors considered it. Mr X said this gave the Council an unfair amount of time to prepare.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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

What I found

Legislation

5. Councils have a duty to provide free transport to school to ‘eligible’ children. Eligible children include:
• Children attending the nearest qualifying school to home where the distance to school is more than the statutory walking distance (two miles for children up to the age of eight, and three miles for children aged eight and over).
• Children who cannot walk to school, accompanied as necessary, because of the nature of the route.
• Children who cannot walk to school because of their special educational needs.
6. Councils must apply their published 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 parents can use to challenge decisions.
7. The Council has a transport policy which aligns with the above. The Council also offers a spare seats scheme. This provides transport to school for children not entitled to free transport. Parents are required to pay for this service. The policy explains there is no guarantee a spare seat will be available. If the Council offers a spare seat, it may withdraw it if an entitled traveller needs it. The policy also explains the Council regularly retenders routes. This can also affect the availability of spare seats.

What happened

8. Two of Mr X’s children, F and G, already attend his preferred school (School Z). F and G have previously travelled to school under the spare seats scheme. Mr X has another child, H, due to start School Z in September 2022.
9. The Council told Mr X his children did not qualify for free transport. It said his children were attending the fourth closest school to home. Free transport was available to the closest school, but not School Z. The Council also said it could not offer spare seats for the 2022/2023 academic year. The relevant service had been retendered, was at capacity, and no longer served Mr X’s village.
10. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision that his children were not entitled to free transport. He also appealed the lack of spare seats for the 2022/23 academic year. Mr X said his eldest child (F) was being assessed for an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP). Mr X explained that when he applied for a primary school place for F, the Council offered a place at a feeder school for School Z. He explained he wanted his children to attend the same school. Mr X questioned the way various bus services operated. Mr X provided detailed information in support of his appeal. This included information about the schools children from different areas attended and the bus services the Council operated.
11. A panel of councillors considered Mr X’s appeal. Mr X attended the appeal hearing. He had the opportunity to present his case and the panel asked questions.
12. The panel considered Mr X’s reasons for wanting his children to attend School Z. The panel noted Mr X’s children were entitled to free transport to their closest school. But School Z was the fourth closest school so there was no legal entitlement to free transport. Mr X’s original application for a primary school place for F was late because of the family moving into the area. This affected where the Council could offer a place. The panel noted that F did not yet have an EHCP and there were no reasons his children could not attend their closest school. The panel decided there were no exceptional reasons to provide Mr X’s children with free transport to School Z.
13. The panel also considered the lack of spare seats. It considered what the Council and Mr X had said. But the panel’s remit did not include increasing the size of a vehicle or altering routes to accommodate children not eligible for free transport.

Assessment

14. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decisions. 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 2, we can only criticise a council’s decision if there was fault in the way it was reached.
15. The Council has applied its transport policy which reflects the statutory requirements set out in paragraph 5. There is no indication of fault in the way it did this or in how it reached the decision Mr X’s children do not qualify for free transport.
16. The Council’s spare seats policy makes it clear that seats are not guaranteed and that they can be withdrawn. The Council has explained the lack of availability to Mr X. The panel considered this point but increasing the size of vehicles or changing routes was not within the panel’s remit. Its role was to decide if the Council’s policies had been properly applied and if there were exceptional reasons for granting transport.
17. Based on the evidence available there is not enough evidence of fault with the way the Council has acted for us to be able to question the decisions reached. It is also not our role to say how the Council should operate its transport network or its appeals process. We would not say a deadline two-weeks before the final hearing to submit evidence represents fault.
18. We will not therefore investigate Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman