Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the lack of notice given by the Council about a change to school transport arrangements. Further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council gave less than 24 hours’ notice before changing the school transport arrangements for his 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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complains the council gave less than 24 hours’ notice before changing agreed transport arrangements for Y. Previously, Y travelled to school as a solo passenger in a taxi. However, the Council informed Mr X she would now travel to school with other children.
6. Mr X says this caused his daughter severe anxiety.
7. The Council confirms Mr X applied for school transport for Y. In the application form he advised Y was able to travel by bus. However, as there was no pickup point close to their home, the Council provided a taxi to take Y to and from school.
8. This continued for about seven months. However, towards the end of the summer term, the taxi company contacted Mr X. It said that from the following day, it would be collecting Y 40 minutes earlier and she would be sharing the taxi with three other children.
9. Mr X complains he was given no warning and the Council did not contact him at all.
10. In response to his complaint, the Council says it tries to give as much notice as possible when making changes to school transport. However on this occasion it needed make urgent arrangements to transport other students to avoid them being unable to attend school. It apologised for not being able to provide more notice.
11. Mr X has appealed against the shared transport offered by the Council. The Council has considered the information provided and followed the appeals process. In dealing with Mr X’s appeal the Council considered:
• the original application form from Mr X stating that Y can travel on the bus
• the reason for Y travelling in a taxi as a sole passenger which is outlined in paragraph seven above
• letters of support for Y travelling as a solo passenger from a medical professional

Mr X attended the appeal meeting.

12. Having considered all the information provided the Council decided to keep the new arrangements for Y to share a taxi with other children. The appeal committee decided the Council had followed its Home to School Travel Assistance Policy correctly. It decided there was no evidence to show the transport offered was not sufficient and no mitigating measures such as a seating plan or passenger assistance had been trialled. It also decided there was not enough evidence to show Y is unable to travel with other children.
13. 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.
14. The Council’s Home to School Travel Assistance Policy says:

“For children of secondary school age, the standard method of travel is a travel pass for public transport or a school bus (under closed contract to Cornwall Council). Where the standard method of travel is unsuitable, alternative travel arrangements will be provided.”

“The expectation is that all children will be able to travel with other children. Individual transport will only be agreed in individual cases where it is necessary to meet a child’s individual needs.”

15. Based on the information seen, there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council decided Y was not eligible to travel to and from school as a solo passenger.
16. The Council considered Mr X’s appeals, and the additional information he provided. However, it decided there was not enough evidence to support his claim that Y cannot travel with other children. Having considered the information provided, this is a decision the Council is entitled to make. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has explained why it changed Y’s travel arrangements without notice. It has apologised for the lack of notice and further investigation of this point will not lead to a different outcome.
18. Also, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman