Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the school transport arrangements for the complainant’s child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council for us to be able to question its decisions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complained the Council stopped providing his son (Y) with free home to school transport from his address. Y spends time at Mr X’s home as well as time at his mother’s address. The Council says it will only provide transport from Y’s mother’s address. Mr X wants the Council to reinstate the transport from his own 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))

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. Mr X contacted the Council after it said it would no longer provide Y with home to school transport from his address. Mr X explained his son has Special Educational Needs and an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). Mr X said his son’s EHC Plan coordinator had said the Council would provide transport from both addresses. Mr X was unhappy transport had ended without notice. Mr X explained if he had to take Y to his mother’s address to access transport the journey would be long and detrimental to Y. There would also be logistical issues as Y’s siblings needed to be taken to school. Mr X said the custody arrangements for Y were not 50/50, but an application had been made to the courts.
6. The Council considered Mr X’s appeals at Stage 1 and 2 of its process. Mr X had the chance to present his case at the final stage. In its responses the Council said:
• It was only responsible for providing transport to the nearest qualifying school from the address where the child is “habitually and normally resident”.
• Transport will only be provided from one address. The only exception is where a court has directed the child must spend 50% of their time with each parent. But the school attended needs to be the nearest qualifying school from both addresses.
• Mr X lives in Suffolk, so the school Y attends is not the nearest qualifying school from his home address. A ‘50/50’ court order would not change this.
• The Council withdrew the transport when it discovered it was being provided in error. When transport is withdrawn, it will normally continue until a natural break. The Council told Mr X the transport would stop after half-term, so it had followed its policy.
• The Council was aware of the long journey times if Mr X took Y to his mother’s address to access transport. The Council was not saying this is what Mr X should do, but rather it would not provide transport from his address.
• Having siblings with transport requirements applied to many families.
• The Council had properly applied its transport policy and there were no exceptional reasons to provide transport.
7. I understand Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision. However, the role of the Ombudsman is not to act as a right of further appeal. We cannot criticise a council’s decision provided it has made it in line with the correct process.
8. The evidence shows the Council has considered Mr X’s appeals in line with its policy. It decided Y is not eligible for home to school transport from Mr X’s address. The Council has taken Mr X through its appeals process and maintained its decision. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision or considered Mr X’s appeals. The Council’s decisions are in line with legislation and its policy. It has decided there are no exceptional reasons to grant transport using its discretionary powers. It has explained its decisions to Mr X. An investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decisions.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman