Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for free school transport for his son. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for free home to school transport for his son. Mr X says the Council’s policy is overcomplicated and outdated and information about how the Council calculates the nearest school is not clearly available. He thought he had applied for the nearest and best school for his son. Mr X says some other children who live locally have been granted free school transport.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start 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 Council’s Education Transport Policy.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X applied for free home to school transport for his son. The Council refused his application because his son is not attending the nearest available school to his home address.
8. Local authorities must make suitable home to school travel arrangements as they consider necessary for ‘eligible children’ of compulsory school age to attend their ‘qualifying school’. The travel arrangements must be made and provided free of charge. The relevant qualifying school is the nearest school with places available that provides education appropriate to the age, ability and aptitude of the child, and any special educational needs the child may have. ‘Eligible children’ include:

• children living outside ‘statutory walking distance’ from the school (two miles for children under eight, three miles for children aged eight and above);
• children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot reasonably be expected to walk to school because of their special educational needs, disability or mobility problem;
• children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot walk to school because the route is unsafe; and
• children entitled on low-income grounds. (Education Act 1996, 508B(1) and Schedule 35B)

9. The Council’s policy says it will provide free transport to school where the child attends their nearest available secondary school and where they live more than 3 miles away from the school.
10. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision via the Council’s two stage appeal process and provided additional information in support of his application and reasons for choosing this school for his son.
11. The Council considered the information Mr X provided, but did not uphold his appeal. It explained that eligibility for school transport is separate to the school admissions process and this is clearly stated on its school admissions page so parents are aware of this when applying for a school place. This page also signposts and provides a link to the Council’s school transport page which provides information about how parents can check which is their nearest school to their home address for the purposes of school transport.
12. The Council noted at stage two of its appeal process that it initially referred to the wrong nearest available school. It apologised for this. This error did not have any impact on Mr X’s application as there was another school which was closer to his home which would have been available for his son and so it remained the case that he was not attending his nearest suitable school and so did not qualify for free transport.
13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision. It has considered, decided and refused Mr X’s application in line with its published Education Transport Policy which applies to all applications. Information on how to check which is the nearest school to your address is clearly stated and signposted on its website. Each application is assessed on its own individual circumstances and so the fact there were successful applications for some local children does not indicate fault by the Council in its consideration of Mr X’s application.

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman