Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide Ms X’s child with free transport to school. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse transport assistance for her child, Y. Ms X says the walking route to Y’s school is isolated and unsafe. She complains the Council refused her application with no good reason when it previously accepted similar applicants. Ms X also says the stage two panel was not independent. She wants the Council to provide transport for 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))
3. 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)
4.  

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. In March 2023, Ms X applied to the Council for home to school transport for Y. The Council rejected her application as there was a closer secondary school with space. It also recognised its error in incorrectly providing transport to Y’s sibling Z previously.
8. Ms X appealed the decision. An independent panel refused it concluding there were no good reasons to overturn the decision.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which decisions are made. We consider if there was fault during the decision-making process and if that fault caused the person complaining a significant injustice.
10. The Council considered Ms X’s application, appeals, and the additional information she provided to decide on eligibility in line with its published policy. It found safety is only a factor when a child is attending the nearest qualifying school, and in this case Y was not. Based on this, it found no good reason to award transport to Y.
11. I will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making. Panel members do not need to be independent of the Council, but independent of the original decision which they were in this case. While the Council previously awarded home to school transport for Z in error, this does not mean there is fault in it correctly applying its policy for Y.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman