Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about post-16 home to school transport for a young person with special educational needs. Further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for post-16 transport to college for her son, Y, who has an Education, Health, and Care Plan (EHC Plan). She says she was not given enough notice of the appeal panel hearing.

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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. There is no legal duty on Councils to provide travel assistance to young people aged over 16. However, the Council provides travel assistance, at its discretion, to young people up to the age of 25 who have special educational needs.
6. Y has an EHC Plan and attends college. Mrs X asked the Council to provide Y with transport.
7. The Council refused to provide transport for Y. Stating the home to college distance is less than three miles. Mrs X asked for a review and the Council rejected her application again at stage one.
8. Mrs X appealed against the decision. The Council’s Appeal Panel convened to consider the appeal and Mrs X attended. However, although the hearing went ahead it was not valid as there were not enough councillors present and the meeting was not quorate.
9. The Council wrote to Mrs X explaining the previous hearing was not valid and it scheduled a new meeting giving her two days’ notice. Mrs X did not ask the Council to postpone the meeting and it went ahead, and the panel considered the appeal.
10. Ms X says she was not given enough notice about the meeting and was not able to share her views with the Council. However, the Clerk’s notes from the meeting show the panel heard from Council officers, who explained their reasons for refusing Mrs X's application. Mrs X then spoke to the panel. She explained her son’s special needs, her family circumstances (both personal and financial) and the reasons for requesting home to college transport. Having heard from Officers and Mrs X, the appeal panel decided to refuse her application for school transport. It explained its reasons for deciding that Mrs X’s application was not an exceptional case which justified exercising discretion and awarding transport.
11. The Ombudsman cannot criticise the outcome of a decision which the Council has made correctly. The evidence shows Mrs X attended the valid panel hearing, provided information to Councillors, and answered their questions. It also considered the information on Y’s medical conditions along with the other evidence she provided. The Council decided Y was not eligible for home to college transport. It was entitled to make this decision in line with its policy and there is no evidence the decision-making process was flawed.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because, while the Council gave her short notice of the final appeal meeting, we consider that further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman