Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to remove a transport assistant from her child’s home to school transport. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council:
• removed a travel transport assistant from her child, Y’s, home to school transport; and
• failed to inform her about a risk assessment conducted regarding Y.
2. Mrs X wants the Council to send her a copy of the risk assessment and reinstate the transport assistant.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data processing matters and subject access requests. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Decision to remove transport assistant

8. We are 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.
9. Based on the information seen, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. The Council considered all the relevant documents when it decided to remove the transport assistant from Y’s home to school transport. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Delay

10. The Council’s home to school transport policy provides timescales for appeals. Stage one appeals should be responded to within 20 working days.
11. The Council sent its stage one appeal response 75 working days after Mrs X’s request. The Council said the delay was due to obtaining additional information. In any case, this did not cause Mrs X any injustice. This is because the Council continued to provide the transport assistant during this period. Therefore, we will not investigate this matter further.

Risk assessment

12. Mrs X complained the Council failed to inform her of a risk assessment carried out by the transport provider regarding her child. The stage two appeal panel recommended the Council ensure parents are notified about any risk assessments. It also recommended the Council apologise to Mrs X for failing to inform her about the matter.
13. The Council accepted the recommendations. It wrote to Mrs X and apologised. It also wrote to the transport provider and reminded it to ensure any risk assessments conducted are completed with parents.
14. The Council has already acted to improve its services and ensure there is no recurrence of this issue, and it has apologised to Mrs X. Therefore, there is no further outcome achievable through an investigation by the Ombudsman, and we will not investigate this complaint.
15. In Mrs X’s complaint to the Ombudsman one of her desired outcomes was for the Council to provide a copy of the risk assessment. If Mrs X wants a copy of the risk assessment, she can ask the Council in the first instance through a Subject Access Request. If the Council does not provide the information, I consider it would be reasonable for Mrs X to take the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office, which is the statutory body created to investigate matters relating to information and data processing.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate most of Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. For the remaining elements, Mrs X was not caused a significant injustice, an investigation by the Ombudsman would not achieve any additional outcome, and Mrs X can take matters relating to data processing to the information commissioner’s office.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman