Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse an application for home to school travel assistance. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has refused to award home to school travel assistance for her child, Y. She says the route to Y’s nearest suitable school is unsafe and this is why she does not attend that school, but this was not taken into account during the appeals process. She wants the Council to award Y home to school travel assistance.

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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Councils must apply their home to school transport policy when deciding entitlement to school transport. When an application is refused, a person can appeal the decision. The Council’s appeals process has two stages.
7. Ms X’s child, Y, attends school A, which is not their nearest school. Ms X requested home to school travel assistance for Y on the grounds that the route to the nearest school, school B was unsafe. She also has another child who attends school A and who already receives travel assistance. The Council refused Ms X’s application.
8. Ms X appealed this decision at stage one and two of the appeals process but the Council did not uphold her appeal. In the stage two response to Ms X, it set out how it had considered the appeal. It said through parental choice, Y was not attending their nearest suitable school. It said had Y applied to their nearest school, school B, they would have been offered a place. The nearest suitable school was therefore school B. As the Council only has a duty to provide transport to eligible children attending their nearest suitable school, Y was not eligible for travel assistance. It did not consider there were any extenuating circumstances which would affect this decision.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. We are not an appeal body and cannot criticise decisions which are taken without fault. The Council has considered Ms X’s application and appeal and its decision appears in line with statutory guidance and its home to school transport policy. The safety of the route to school B is not a relevant factor in this case, as Y does not attend there. Whilst I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision, there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it has reached its decision to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman