Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not providing transport to school taster or transition sessions. This is because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, complained the Council had refused to provide transport to taster or transition days at the school she wanted her son to attend. Miss X says because of her own health problems she could not drive her son to the second two sessions and had to pay for a taxi. In her complaint to the Council Miss X said she had lost faith in her caseworker and wanted them replacing.

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 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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. Miss X first complained to the Council after she had transported her son to two taster sessions.
6. Miss X asked the Council about transport for two further taster sessions. These would last all day instead of the two hours sessions normally lasted for.
7. The Council responded and said the school had confirmed it was looking to arrange a day and a half for future transition. It said these were different to taster days which are part of the admissions process. Miss X eventually arranged the transport herself, so her son did not miss the two days.
8. While I understand Miss X’s frustrations, we will not start an investigation into her complaint. This is because the injustice she claims from the Council’s alleged fault is not serious enough to warrant an investigation. We only consider the most serious cases and this one does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code.
9. While I have not taken a view on whether the Council was at fault, I think it would be helpful if the Council’s policy contained more detail about transport to taster, induction, and transition days. A definition of each would be useful, as would more information about the application process, eligibility criteria, and the type of transport to be provided.
10. Miss X’s desired outcome of a new caseworker is not something we could achieve. That is a decision for the Council, not the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault, and we cannot achieve what she wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman