Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reject Miss X’s appeal for taxi travel free school transport for her child Y. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council will not agree to provide her child Y with a taxi in line with its free home to school transport policy.
2. Miss X said she has been caused stress and upset by the Council’s decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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.
  (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council operates a free home to school transport scheme for eligible children. The Council’s policy states that it will not provide taxis except for cases where children with special educational needs (SEN) have provided evidence this is necessary.
8. Miss X applied for free home to school transport for her child Y to attend school. The Council confirmed Y was eligible and said it would provide a taxi door to door service for Y and 6 other children.
9. Miss X appealed the Council’s decision because she said Y cannot travel without her and required a taxi for her to accompany him to school. She provided supporting evidence from a healthcare practitioner and Y’s educational health and care plan (EHCP).
10. The Council considered Miss X’s appeal and advised that its statutory duty was to provide a relatively stress free journey for Y and this was what it had offered. The Council acknowledged the information Miss X provided but said it did not consider that Y qualified for a bespoke taxi service.
11. Miss X remains unhappy with the Council’s decision and wants us to find the Council at fault. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of a decision the Council has made if it has been made without fault. The evidence shows that the Council has considered the medical information Miss X has provided and demonstrated through the application of its policy why it does not consider it should change its decision. The Council is entitled to make this decision as there is no evidence of fault in how it was made.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman