Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s approach to the calculation and payment of Personal Travel Budgets. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained about the Council’s policy for calculating Personal Travel Budgets (PTBs) for children eligible for home to school transport. Mr X also complained about the arrangements for parents to submit claims for PTBs. Mr X wants the Council’s policies amending.

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s child is eligible for home to school transport. Mr X receives a PTB from the Council in lieu of the Council providing transport.
6. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s method of calculating the route from home to school. The Council uses the shortest route which often includes rural roads. The distance is then used to calculate the PTB. Mr X says the Council’s policy is at odds with a ‘Parent Guidance Leaflet’ from the Council. This advises parents to “Avoid quiet country roads in case you breakdown.” Mr X thinks the Council’s calculation policy is flawed for other reasons. For example, the shortest rural route might be less practical than a longer route or be less fuel efficient.
7. Mr X wants the Council to amend its calculation policy to “the shortest route compliant…with [the Council’s] transport guidance to parents.”
8. Mr X is also unhappy with the Council’s arrangements for parents to submit PTB claims. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s policy which requires parents to submit a monthly log of attendance and an invoice on the last day of the month. Mr X wants the Council to gather attendance information directly from schools and for the Council to request invoices “without undue delay”.
9. While I understand the issues at the heart of this complaint are important to Mr X, we will not start an investigation.
10. The Department for Education has published Statutory Guidance on Home to School Transport (the Guidance). This details how councils should calculate distances when determining eligibility for free transport - using either the shortest available walking route or motorised route. But there is nothing in the guidance which states how councils should measure distances when calculating PTBs. It is therefore for the Council to decide what system it uses. It is entitled to include rural roads when calculating the shortest route.
11. The Guidance does state transport policies need to show how distances will be measured and the Council’s policy shows this. The Council’s approach is the one taken by most local authorities. There is nothing in the Guidance which would allow us to say there was fault in the Council’s approach.
12. Mr X says the above approach conflicts with a document published by the Council which advises parents to avoid rural roads. But that is general guidance for parents on transporting their children to school – as opposed to a published policy for calculating PTBs. The Council has also explained to Mr X that while its route measurements are used to calculate PTBs, it is for parents to decide how to spend the PTB and how to transport their child to school. This includes the route travelled. The discrepancy highlighted by Mr X between the two documents does not mean the Council’s policy for calculating PTBs is flawed.
13. The Guidance is also silent on how councils should administer claims for PTBs. Again, this is therefore a matter for the Council to decide. It is clear Mr X would like the Council to take a different approach. But without evidence of fault in the current approach it is not one we can criticise and so an investigation is not justified.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman