Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide her son 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 Ms X, complained about the decision not to provide her son with free transport to school.

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. 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. Ms X moved address and asked the Council to provide her son (Y) with free transport to his school (School C). The Council refused Ms X’s application. It said School C was not the nearest qualifying school to Ms X’s new home address. The Council said School B was closer and could have offered Y a place when Ms X moved. This meant Y did not qualify for free transport.
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. Ms X appealed the Council’s decision not to provide Y with free transport. A senior officer considered Ms X’s appeal at the first stage of the process. They decided the Council had properly applied its policy and there were no exceptional circumstances warranting free transport.
9. An independent panel considered Ms X’s stage 2 appeal. The panel considered information from Ms X and the Council. The Council explained the background to the case and why the original application and appeal had been rejected. Ms X had the chance to present her case. Ms X explained the background to her house move. Ms X said School B did not have a sixth form, so it was not a suitable school. Public transport operated to School C but at a high cost. Ms X provided other information in support of her appeal.
10. The panel decided the original application had been properly dealt with. The panel considered the extra information Ms X had provided. It decided there were not enough grounds to make an exception to the Council’s policy and to provide free transport. It wrote to Ms X with its decision.
11. We are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions which have been properly taken. I understand Ms X is disappointed with the Council’s decision. But based on the evidence available, it correctly applied its published policy when it refused Ms X’s original application. Y is not attending the nearest qualifying school and so he is not eligible for free transport. Whether there is a safe walking route is irrelevant when a child does not attend the nearest qualifying school. The Council then considered Ms X’s appeals. The stage 2 panel considered all the information before it and reached a decision it was entitled to take. The Council and panel have explained their decisions. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decisions for us to investigate.
12. Ms X is also unhappy with the time taken to consider her appeal. The Council cancelled the original stage 2 hearing when one of the panel members could not attend. While frustrating for Ms X, the delay was not due to fault by the Council and did not affect the eventual decision reached.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman