Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school transport provision. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council refused her appeal for school transport for her children. Miss X said this caused the children distress and risked reversing the progress her children have made with years of support in their current schools. She wanted the Council to agree to provide transport to those schools.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X and her children moved to outside the catchment area of the children’s school. Miss X asked the Council to provide transport for her children, who have Special Educational Needs (SEN). The Council refused this request, and Miss X appealed to the School Transport Appeal Panel.
7. The panel considered all information presented. It considered that the schools Miss X’s children were attending were not their nearest schools and Miss X had not considered closer schools. It considered Miss X’s view the children’s SEN could only be met in their current schools, and her concern about upheaval for the children of moving to different schools. However, it noted it did not follow that closer schools could not meet the children’s needs. The panel decided to refuse Miss X’s appeal, and noted Miss X should explore closer schools.
8. The Council used its discretion to provide transport for a period to enable Miss X to transition the children to closer schools, although it was not under a duty to do so. Miss X chose not to consider closer schools, but it remains an option for her to do so.
9. We are not an appeal body, and the decision to refuse school transport is not one we can question in the absence of fault in the decision-making process. The Council, and the panel on its behalf, followed the correct decision-making process and so we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman