Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support with post 16 transport provided to the complainant’s son. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained about the post-16 transport support provided to his son (Y) who has special educational needs. The Council has offered a Personal Transport Budget (PTB) but Mr X wants it to provide a taxi. Mr X says this will allow him to take his other son (Z) to school. Z lives with his mother, while Y lives with Mr X.

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. For students aged 16-19, councils are required to make the arrangements they consider necessary to facilitate their participation in education or training. For 2023/24, the Council introduced a new post-16 transport policy. The Council will normally provide support in the form of a PTB, but will also offer commissioned services if it decides they are warranted.
7. The Council offered Mr X a PTB of £8,000 per year to help with Y’s post-16 transport to school.
8. Mr X was unhappy with the offer and wanted the Council to provide Y with door-to-door transport. Mr X’s other son (Z) lives with his mother and is entitled to free school transport. But because Z will not travel in a taxi, his mother has to take him to school. This sometimes proves difficult due to problems with Z’s mother’s health. Mr X said if the Council provided Y with door-to-door transport he could take Z to school. The Council refused Mr X’s request.
9. 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 for parents to challenge decisions about transport entitlement and arrangements.
10. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision. A senior officer considered his stage 1 appeal. They explained the Council’s policy and confirmed the original decision.
11. An independent panel then considered Mr X’s appeal at stage 2 of the process. Mr X and the Council had the chance to present information in support of their cases. The panel noted Z lives with his mother and Mr X was not responsible for taking him to school. The panel said Mr X had not provided any financial information in support of his appeal. He had not explained why he could not take Y to school most days and send him to school in a taxi funded by the PTB when this was not possible. The panel refused Mr X’s appeal.
12. I understand Mr X is disappointed with the panel’s decision. But the Ombudsman is not a right of further appeal. We cannot question decisions where the proper process has been followed and if there were no flaws in the Council’s decision-making.
13. Based on the evidence I have seen the Council offered the transport support it considered necessary for Y to attend school. Mr X challenged the support offered and the Council considered his appeals in line with its published policy. The stage 2 panel looked at the information it was presented with and reached a decision it was entitled to. The panel’s decision letter explained its decision. There is no evidence the panel was not independent and did not properly consider the appeal.
14. In the absence of fault in the decision-making process we cannot question the Council’s decisions and so we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to question the Council’s decisions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman