Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide school transport for her child from the school to Ms X’s work address. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has refused to provide school transport for her child, Y, from school to Ms X’s work address. She says this causes inconvenience, distress and financial loss, as Ms X is currently paying for a taxi for Y. She wants the Council to provide transport for Y from school to her work address.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (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. Councils have a duty to provide home to school transport for eligible children. The Council’s Home to School Transport policy provides details of how it assesses eligibility for school transport and how it will meet its duties.
7. The policy defines “home” as the permanent address where the child lives for most of the time. It says transport to alternative addresses, for instance, to take into account childcare arrangements for parents, will not be provided.
8. Ms X’s child, Y, is eligible for home to school transport. Ms X asked the Council to provide after school transport for her child from school to her work address, rather than the home. She said this was necessary to meet Y’s needs and to enable her to continue to work.
9. The Council refused the request. Ms X appealed the decision, but the appeal was not upheld.
10. We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council’s decision appears in line with its Home to School Transport policy. The appeal records show that Ms X attended the appeal and was able to present her case. The appeal panel considered her arguments, the Council’s position and the guidelines set out in the policy. It also considered whether there was good reason to depart from its policy in this case, but decided there was not. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how it reached its decision to warrant an investigation. We cannot question a council’s decision if it is taken without fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman