Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the application for free school transport for the complainant’s daughter. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision not to provide free home to school transport for her daughter, 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 Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X applied for free school transport for her daughter who is waiting for an assessment for an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP).
6. The Council declined Mrs X’s application because she had chosen to send Y to a school that was not the nearest suitable school to their home.
7. Government guidance says a suitable school is a qualifying school, with places available, that is suitable for the child’s age, ability, aptitude, and any special educational needs they may have. It should also be suitable for the child’s sex. Suitable school does not mean the most suitable school for a child.

8. Mrs X appealed the decision saying Y’s placement at her current school has broken down and they have chosen a school where they believe Y will receive an acceptable education. Mrs X also explained both she and Y’s father work and they have another child to get to school. Therefore Y should receive free school transport.
9. The Council heard Mrs X’s appeal and held a panel. The panel considered the information she provided including statements of support as well. The panel decided not to award Y a place on the scheme because she was not attending the nearest suitable school. When making this decision it noted the following:
• due to her disability, Y has specific educational needs and using public transport is a barrier to her attending the current school
• many parents face challenges when balancing work and child commitments
• it was not its role to consider whether the current school was unsuitable for Y, or whether another closer school would be able to accommodate her needs; the outcome of the ECHP will decide this matter
• there is no existing school transport to the preferred school and the cost of providing a taxi for Y would be considerable; and
• there is no statutory requirement to provide free transport for Y to attend her parent’s preferred school which is not the nearest suitable school.
10. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of a decision the Council has made, provided the Council has made the decision in line with the correct process. The evidence shows the Council has considered Mrs X’s supporting statements in line with its policy and has decided it is not appropriate to exercise discretion to overlook Y’s ineligibility. The Council is entitled to make this decision. An investigation would therefore be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we have seen no sign of fault in the way the decision to refuse the application was reached. 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 it was reached.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman