Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal of the complainant’s application and appeal for school transport assistance for his daughter. This is because there is no indication of fault on the Council’s part causing injustice to the complainant.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, complains that the Council was at fault in refusing his application and appeal for school transport assistance for his daughter.

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 applied for a school place for his daughter at a school outside the Council’s area. He says he was advised to do so because there were no places available at his catchment school and he was not prepared to accept the alternative school the Council had offered.
6. Mr B then applied unsuccessfully for school transport assistance for his daughter in the form of a free bus pass. The Council refused the application. Mr B used his right to appeal against the decision. His appeal was unsuccessful at both stages of the Council’s appeal procedure. The Stage 2 appeal panel refused the appeal on the grounds that it was parental choice for Mr B’s daughter not to attend the nearest qualifying school in the Council’s area.
7. Mr B believes the Council’s decision to refuse his appeal was flawed on two grounds. First, he says the panel was wrong to conclude that his daughter is attending the school as a result of parental choice. Second, he says the Council’s officer failed to make the panel aware of information he submitted.
8. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to take a view on whether Mr B’s application and appeal should have been successful. Rather, it is to consider whether there is evidence of fault causing injustice in the process of considering them. I can see no such evidence.
9. I have no reason to doubt Mr B’s contention that there are no places available at his catchment school, or that he was advised to apply for the school his daughter attends. However, I also note that he did not apply for the catchment school and turned down the offer of a place at another of the Council’s schools. Those are decisions Mr B was entitled to make. But they also demonstrate that it was reasonable for the panel to conclude that his decision to accept a place at a school outside the Council’s area did amount to parental choice, and the Ombudsman will not criticise it for doing so.
10. I have seen a copy of the email Mr B sent to the Council’s officer on the day of the appeal hearing. It sets out Mr B’s views on migrant children being given school places and public safety, and it reiterates his argument that his daughter’s placement was not as a result of parental choice. It is not clear whether this specific email was placed before the panel, but I attach no significance to this. The same arguments are set out in Mr B’s earlier submissions, so it is clear the panel was aware of his views when it made its decision. There are therefore no grounds for us to conclude that Mr B was caused an injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman