Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about post 16 home to school transport. It is reasonable to have expected Miss X to have appealed to the Tribunal. And it is unlikely we would find fault in its decision not to award full home to school transport.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, is Y’s mother. Miss X says the Council should provide full post 16 home to school transport for Y.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
3. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Background

6. Miss X is Y’s mother. Y attended Setting Z. Y has an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). In October 2022 the Council granted home to school transport for Y. The Council held an annual review of Y’s EHC Plan in January 2023. The notes show attendees said the home to school transport should be continued when Y moved settings in September 2023. The notes do not say anything about which setting Y would move to.
7. The Council issued a notice that it would not amend the EHC Plan following the annual review, at the end of March 2023. It accepts this notice was late. The notice set out that Miss X could appeal that decision to the Tribunal. She did not.
8. In May Miss X applied to the Council for home to school transport for Y to Setting Q. Miss X and Y had decided Setting Q would be the right place for Y. The Council in June refused the application. It said Setting Q was not the nearest suitable setting. It says Setting B is closer and is suitable. It says it had told Miss X this in March.
9. In September Y started at Setting Q. At that stage Y’s EHC Plan did not name Setting Q or B. Miss X appealed the decision not to award home to school transport to the Council’s internal appeals’ panel. Her appeal failed. The Council said Y was not attending the nearest suitable placement.
10. In December 2023 the Council issued an amended EHC Plan naming Setting B. It also offered a railcard for Y to get to Setting Q and also one for an adult to accompany Y. It said it would provide petrol costs as an alternative.

Analysis

11. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to have appealed the notice not to amend the EHC Plan issued in March 2024. The Tribunal could then have decided if Setting Q should be named as the suitable placement in the EHC Plan. As this appeal right existed we cannot investigate whether the EHC Plan should have been amended earlier or what the EHC Plan should say.
12. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision to refuse the home to school transport given Miss X is not attending the nearest post 16 setting and a closer placement is named in Y’s EHC Plan.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect her to have appealed to the Tribunal. And we are unlikely to find fault in its decision not to grant full home to school transport.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman