Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse home to school transport for her child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has refused to provide home to school transport for her child. She says this puts her child at risk and causes them both distress. She wants the Council to provide her child with home to school transport.

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), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Councils must apply their home to school transport policy when deciding entitlement to school transport. The Council’s policy says where a child has special educational needs, the Council must assess on an individual basis whether the child could reasonably be expected to walk to school.
7. The policy has a two stage appeals process which parents can use if they are unhappy with a decision to refuse transport.
8. In this case, Ms X’s child, Y, has special educational needs. They attend a special school named in their Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council considered Ms X’s request for home to school transport. It decided Y could reasonably be expected to walk to school if accompanied and it was reasonable to expect a parent or carer to accompany them. They refused Ms X’s request for home to school transport.
9. Ms X was unhappy with this decision and appealed. The Council held appeals at both stage one and stage two of its process. The stage two appeal panel considered additional information provided by Ms X and met with Ms X and her advocate. It maintained the Council’s position that it was reasonable for Y to walk to school and reasonable to expect a parent or carer to accompany them.
10. I accept Ms X does not agree with this decision, but we are not an appeal body and cannot question decisions that have been taken in line with Council policy. The Council considered relevant information and reached a decision it was entitled to take. It heard appeals from Ms X at two stages in line with its policy but did not change its decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how it reached its decision to warrant further consideration by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman