Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide his daughter with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained about the decision not to provide his daughter 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
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 and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X asked the Council to provide his daughter (Y) with free transport to his preferred secondary school (School Z). The Council refused Mr X’s application. It said School Z was not the closest school to Mr X’s home. There were closer schools which could have offered Y a place. This meant Y did not qualify for free transport to School Z.
7. Councils must apply their transport policy when deciding entitlement to school transport. But they also have the discretion to consider exceptional circumstances. They must have a review or appeal process by which to do so.
8. Mr X appealed the decision not to provide Y with transport to School Z. In his appeal, Mr X explained why he wanted Y to attend School Z. Mr X explained he did not want Y to attend the closest school to his home due to some of the children who would be attending. Mr X said they had threatened his daughter and he was concerned for her safety.
9. At stage 1 of its appeals process the Council confirmed the original decision not to provide transport to School Z. It referred to School Z being the seventh nearest school to Mr X’s home address. As well as the closest school to Mr X’s home, there were two other schools closer than School Z which could have offered Y a place. The Council refused Mr X’s appeal and he asked for it to be escalated.
10. A panel of officers considered Mr X’s appeal at the final stage of the Council’s process. Mr X attended the appeal and had the chance to present his case. The original hearing was adjourned so Mr X could provide additional information. The Council confirmed why it had refused Mr X’s application for transport. The panel considered Mr X’s case but did not uphold his appeal. The panel’s decision letter referred to there being closer schools to Mr X’s home. The panel decided School Z was not the only school Y could attend. The panel decide there were no exceptional circumstances meaning the Council should provide free transport to School Z.
11. Based on the evidence available the Council correctly applied its published policy to Mr X’s original application. The Council’s policy aligns with the legislation on home to school transport. The Council then considered Mr X’s appeals in line with its published policy. It considered the information it was presented with and reached a decision it was entitled to take. It explained its decisions at stage 1 and 2 of its appeals process.
12. While I understand Mr X is disappointed with the Council’s decisions, we are not an appeal body and cannot criticise decisions which were properly taken. Based on the evidence available, there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered Mr X’s application and appeals to warrant further consideration. We will not therefore start an investigation into Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to be able to question the Council’s decisions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman