Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse an application for school transport assistance for the complainant’s son. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mrs X, complains about the Council’s decision that her son does not qualify for free home to school transport.
2. She also says the Council refused to provide an interpreter that she asked for at the appeal. Therefore, she could not express herself.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X applied for free school transport for her son to secondary school.
7. To be eligible for free school transport a child aged 8 to 16:
• must be attending the nearest available suitable school; and
• must live more than 3 miles from the school by safe walking distance.
8. The Council refused Mrs X’s application because, her son was attending her preferred school, and not a nearest suitable school, three of which had places available at the time of allocation. Therefore, Mrs X’s application did not meet the criteria set out in the Council’s Home to School Transport Policy.
9. Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision via the stage two appeal panel and provided more information about their circumstances in support of the appeal.
10. The panel considered all the information Mrs X provided but did not uphold the appeal. It was satisfied the application did not meet the eligibility criteria and she had not provided a strong enough case to make an exception to its policy.
11. Mrs X also complains the Council refused to provide an interpreter and she could not express herself.
12. The Council says its records show Mrs X did not request an interpreter in her application or appeal correspondence. It says she asked for an Urdu speaking interpreter when she arrived at the appeal panel hearing. However, the panel chairperson was able to communicate with Mrs X in Urdu. They told her it would adjourn the meeting if she could not communicate.
13. The officers say Mrs X left the meeting and returned about ten minutes later with her husband who said he would speak in the meeting. So, the meeting went ahead with both parents and the Council was confident Mrs X’s husband’s understanding was adequate. It says the meeting would have been stopped if there was any indication the husband could not understand.
14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. We are not an appeal body, and it is not our role to question the merits of the Council’s decisions where, as here, there is no sign of fault in the way the decision was reached. This is a decision it was entitled to make, and it was made in line with the published eligibility criteria which were not met.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mrs X’s application for free school transport and her following appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman