Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in refusing the complainant’s application and appeal for free school transport for her daughter. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Miss X, complains that the Council was at fault in refusing her application and appeal for free school transport for her daughter.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X applied for free school transport in the form of a bus pass for her daughter from September 2023. The Council assessed her application on the grounds of low income. In order to qualify on these grounds, the assessed walking distance to school must fall between 2 and 6 miles. The Council refused the application on the grounds that the distance was 1.7 miles.
6. Miss X’s application has completed the Council’s review and appeal procedure and has been unsuccessful at each stage. She argues that this is due to fault on the Council’s part. She disagrees with both the measurement of the assessed route and its safety.
7. On the issue of the measurement of the route, Miss X has used an online mapping system which puts the distance slightly over two miles. The Council’s system, which measured it at 1.7 miles, uses Ordnance Survey mapping. Miss X does not think this system is appropriate because it is not, in her view, widely used. That does not mean its use, which is not unusual for public bodies, amounts to fault. There are no grounds for the Ombudsman to find that the Council’s measurement of the route is demonstrably flawed.
8. Turning to the safety of the route, the evidence shows that Miss X was able to make her case to the appeal panel and presented photographs to support her argument. She also presented a supportive statement from a local councillor. The appeal panel was clearly aware of her arguments before it made its decision.
9. It is for appeal panels to decide how much weight to give to the evidence before them. The Ombudsman will not criticise a decision which has been properly made. In this case, the evidence shows that the panel properly considered the cases made by both Miss X and the Council when making its decision. There is nothing to suggest fault in the way it did so. That being the case, the Ombudsman cannot intervene to criticise the decision, or to substitute an alternative view.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman