Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide free transport to school for her son. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains about the Council’s decision not to provide free transport to school for her son.

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 do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start 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))
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Council’s Education Transport Policy.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mrs X applied for free transport to school for her son. The Council refused the application because the school, which was their first preference, was not the nearest available secondary school.
9. The Council’s policy is to provide free transport to school where the child attends their nearest available school and where they live more than 3 miles away from the school.
10. Mrs X appealed via the Council’s two stage appeal process. She provided additional information about their particular circumstances, including that her older child attends the same school and has school transport as well as concerns about walking conditions and the impact on her work and finances if transport is not provided.
11. The Council considered the information Mrs X provided, but upheld its original decision. It explained that had Mrs X applied for the nearest school her son would have been eligible for transport to school as it is more than 3 miles from his home. Where parents choose a school which is not the nearest available one the parents are responsible for school transport and the eligibility criteria for school transport is not met.
12. It explained that sibling links are not a relevant factor in the transport policy and that her older child qualified for free transport to school because it was the nearest available school at the time. It said the other points Mrs X raised were not part of the transport eligibility criteria and no exceptional reasons were provided which would cause it to depart from its policy
13. Whilst I acknowledge Mrs X’s dissatisfaction with the Council’s decision to refuse her application there is no sign of fault by the Council here. It considered the information she provided in reaching its decision in line with its published Education Transport Policy. We are not an appeal body and it is not our role to question the Council’s decision where, as here, there is no sign of fault in the way it was reached.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman