Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to award school transport to Mr X’s child because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council rejected his application for home to school transport for his child Y.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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.
6. 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.
7. The Council refused Mr X’s application because Y is attending the preferred school, and not the nearest suitable school, which had places available at the time of allocation
8. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision via the stage two appeal panel on the following grounds:
• the chosen school is the nearest to their home
• the Council should have told parents of changes to the nearest school based on a new mapping system
• the Council already provides school transport for other children in the village; and
• the route used by the Council to calculate the walking route is unsafe.
9. The minutes of the appeal panel meeting show:
• there are 2 nearer schools
• the mapping system changed for 23/24 – the previous system was not updated for some years and was therefore inaccurate
• there was no way of notifying possible prospective parents of the changes across the county before the school applications were made
• Department for Education guidance states it is up to the local authority to decide suitable walking routes
• the distance to nearest school is based on a path that has not been assessed for suitability, but the next shortest route is still shorter than the route to the school Y attends
• Y is not entitled to free school meals, and it was not known whether the parents receive the maximum working tax credit.
10. The panel considered all the information Mr X provided but did not uphold the appeal. It was satisfied the application did not meet the eligibility criteria and he had not provided a strong enough case to make an exception to its policy.
11. Mr X also complains the Council
• failed to give him enough notice of the appeal panel meeting and he could not provide more evidence in time
• failed to consider his evidence that he could not find out what was the nearest school before applying; and
• the Council assumed the school chosen was the parents preference.
12. From the information I have seen:
• the Council gave Mr X three weeks notice of the date of the appeal
• Mr X says he was told by other residents of his village that the chosen school for Y is the nearest
• Mr X did not question the school transport policy until more than six months after the closing date for school admission applications
• Information about school transport was available online and paper copies are available on request
13. 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 Mr X attended the appeal and was able to present his case. The appeal panel considered his 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

14. We will not investigate Mr X ’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman