Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision his son is not eligible for free home to school transport. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision his son is not eligible for free home to school transport.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start 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))
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Council’s home to school transport policy which is published on its website.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X applied for free home to school transport for his son after he moved to a new address.
9. The Council refused the application. It explained he did not meet the criteria for free school transport, as set out in its policy, because he is not attending his nearest suitable school.
10. The Council’s home to school transport policy says children between the age of 8 and 16 are eligible for transport assistance where the nearest suitable school is over 3 miles from the registered home address of the child. Where a parent expresses a preference for their child to attend a school which is not the nearest suitable school, transport is not the responsibility of the local authority.
11. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision via the stage 2 appeal panel and provided additional information about the family’s circumstances.
12. The panel considered the information Mr X provided but upheld the Council’s original decision to refuse the application, in line with its policy. It noted there were spaces at a number of nearer suitable schools and Mr X’s decision for his son to continue to attend the same school after he moved to a new address was one of parental preference. It advised Mr X that, if required, the Council could arrange a transfer to a school closer to his current address.
13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council in how it has considered and decided Mr X’s application. It has done so in line with its published policy and eligibility criteria. Mr X has exercised his parental choice in keeping his son at the original school however this does mean he does not meet the criteria for free school transport as it is not his nearest suitable school.
14. We are not an appeal body and it is not our role to question a Council’s decision where, as here, there is no sign of fault in the way in which it was reached. It considered the information Mr X provided but decided not to allow the appeal outside of the Council’s policy. The panel’s decision is one it was entitled to make.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman