Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse an application for transport to college for the complainant’s daughter. We consider that further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for post-16 transport to college for his daughter, Y, who has an Education, Health, and Care Plan (EHC Plan). He says the Council based their decision on incorrect information and focussed on his financial ability to make his own transport arrangements rather than on his daughter’s needs.

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. There is no legal duty on Councils to provide travel assistance to young people aged over 16. However, the Council provides travel assistance, at its discretion, to young people between 16 and 19 years old who have special educational needs.
6. Y has an EHC Plan and attends college. Mr X asked the Council to provide Y with transport.
7. The Council refused to provide transport for Y. Its reasons for refusal were:
• Mrs X is available to take Y to and from school; and
• Y’s sibling attends a school which has breakfast and after school clubs so there will be no clashes with transport arrangements.

Mr X asked for a review and the Council rejected his application again at stage one. It incorrectly stated that Mr X worked shifts.

8. Mr X appealed against the decision. The Council’s Appeal Panel convened to consider the appeal and Mr X spoke to the panel on the telephone.
9. The Council’s minutes of the meeting show that it considered all the information provided by Mr X. It noted:
• Mr X worked 8am to 7pm daily and could not help with Y’s care and/or travel
• there is no family nearby to assist
• breakfast and after school clubs are available for Y’s sibling
• Mrs X does not go out to work and is available to take Y to and from college; and
• Mr & Mrs X had sufficient funds to arrange and pay for their own transport.
10. Having heard from Officers and Mr X, the appeal panel decided to refuse his application for transport to college for Y and explained its reasons for its decision.
11. The Council’s policy for transport for children over 16 with special educational needs says:

“If these gateway criteria are met, the Council will then consider the circumstances of the student and the family and their broader network, to assess whether it is necessary to provide transport for the student. The Council thinks it is reasonable for parents/carers to prioritise transporting the student over other commitments.”

12. The Ombudsman cannot criticise the outcome of a decision which the Council has made correctly. The evidence shows Mr X spoke to the panel by telephone and provided information to Councillors. The panel considered all the information provided before the decision not to award transport to college. It was entitled to make this decision in line with its policy and there is no evidence the decision-making process was flawed.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as we consider further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman