Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the decision not to provide the complainant’s son with free transport to school. This is because the Council has now agreed to provide transport. An investigation would be unlikely to achieve anything more.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, complained about the Council’s decision not to provide her son with free transport to school.

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. 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)
4. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X’s son (Y) had an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) naming a mainstream school. The Council then amended the EHC Plan to name a specific school (School Z). School Z arranged for Y to attend an alternative provision provider. The Council refused Miss X’s application for transport to the alternative provision. It said it was School Z’s responsibility to arrange the transport.
8. Miss X appealed the content of Y’s EHC Plan to the SEND Tribunal. The SEND Tribunal said the Council should amend Y’s EHC Plan to name the alternative provision provider.
9. I asked the Council if this changed its decision about home to school transport. It confirmed it did and it would now provide Y with transport to School Z.
10. We will not therefore investigate Miss X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to Miss X’s desired outcome and we could not achieve anything more.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the Council has agreed to her request for free school transport. We could not achieve anything more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman