Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her home to school transport application for her child, Y. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council wrongly refused her application for her child, Y’s, home to school transport. Mrs X says the matter caused her distress.

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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In March 2024 Mrs X applied to the Council for home to school transport for her child, Y. Mrs X explained both she and Y had disabilities which meant it was not possible for her to transport Y to school. Mrs X explained Y’s father, Mr Z, had work commitments which meant he was unable to transport Y.
6. The Council rejected the application and told Mrs X either she or Mr Z could transport Y to school. It said work commitments cannot be considered as the sole basis for travel assistance.
7. Mrs X appealed the decision. She said she did not believe the Council accounted for all Y’s needs and provided additional evidence about both her and Y’s disabilities.
8. The Council rejected the stage one appeal. It explained it considered all Mrs X’s documents, but said it decided the reason Mr Z could not transport them to school was due to his work commitments. It explained its policy and said a parent’s working commitments are not a sufficient reason to provide transport.
9. Mrs X appealed the decision to the final stage of the Council’s appeal process.
10. The Council considered Mrs X’s appeal at a stage two panel. It wrote to Mrs X and rejected the appeal. It explained again Mr Z’s working commitments were not a sufficient reason why he could not transport Y himself.

Analysis

11. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
12. In deciding whether a child can reasonably be expected to walk to school, (whether the issue is safety or disability), the question is whether they can do so if accompanied and whether it is reasonable to expect a parent to accompany them. There may be good reasons, such as a parent’s disability, why they should not be expected to.
13. Based on the information seen, there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council decided Y was not eligible for home to school transport.
14. The Council considered Mrs X’s application, appeals, and the additional information she provided. In its appeal decisions the Council acknowledged Mrs X’s disabilities. However, it decided there were no good reasons Mr Z could not transport Y to school aside from work commitments, which the Council’s policy explains is not a good enough reason to award transport. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman