Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide her daughter with discretionary post-16 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 daughter with discretionary post-16 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 daughter (Y) with discretionary transport to her school (School C) where she is in the sixth form. The Council refused Ms X’s application. It explained most students were expected to use one of the two options available to young people for reduced cost travel. Discretionary support was only available if the Council decided assistance was necessary for a student to access their education or training. The Council decided this did not apply to Ms X’s application.
7. Ms X appealed the Council’s decision. A council officer considered Ms X’s appeal at the first stage of the appeals process. They decided the Council had properly applied its policy.
8. 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. The Council explained the public transport options available. Ms X had the chance to present her case. Ms X explained the background to her house move and why she wanted the Council to provide transport.
9. 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 provide discretionary transport. It wrote to Ms X with its decision.
10. 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. 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.
11. Ms X is unhappy with the time taken to deal with her appeal. There was delay because the original hearing had to be rescheduled when a panel member could not attend. But this does not represent fault by the Council, nor does it affect the eventual decision reached.

Back to top

Final decision

12. 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