Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide his children with free transport to school. 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 the Council has refused to provide his children with free transport to school.

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))

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 asked the Council to provide his two children with transport to their secondary school. This is a grammar school and Mr X’s children gained places through the Council’s selection test. The Council refused Mr X’s application because it said his children would not be attending the nearest suitable school to home. This meant they were not eligible for free transport.
6. Councils must apply their transport policy when deciding entitlement to school transport. But they also have the discretion to consider exceptional circumstances. They must have a review or appeal process for parents to challenge decisions about transport entitlement and arrangements.
7. Mr X has appealed the Council’s decision. Mr X argued his children obtained their school places through the Council’s own test process. Mr X said the journey to school was dangerous – as was the journey to the closest school to home.
8. A panel of elected members considered Mr X’s appeal at the final stage of the Council’s appeals process. The panel considered information from Mr X and the Council. The panel decided the Council had properly applied its published policy. Because Mr X’s children were not attending the nearest suitable school there was no entitlement to free transport. The fact the journey to school was dangerous was not therefore relevant. The panel decided not to make an exception and refused Mr X’s appeal.
9. I understand Mr X is disappointed with the panel’s decision. But the Ombudsman is not a right of further appeal. We cannot question decisions where the proper process has been followed and if there were no flaws in the Council’s decision-making.
10. In this case, the Council correctly applied the law and its policy when it rejected Mr X’s original application. The school Mr X’s children attends is not the closest to his home and so there is no legal entitlement to transport. When a child does not attend the nearest suitable school, the safety of the route or otherwise is irrelevant to the issue of eligibility.
11. The Council then considered Mr X’s appeals in line with its published policy. The stage 2 panel looked at the information it was presented with, reached a decision it was entitled to, and explained its decision. There is no evidence the panel was not independent and did not properly consider the appeal.
12. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, Mr X queried one of the home to school distances in the panel’s decision letter. I note though that this is not the school Mr X’s children attends, or the nearest school. It was merely mentioned to show there would also be no entitlement under the extra support available to low-income families. I suspect the distance quoted is a straight-line measurement, but it has no bearing on eligibility in this case, or the panel’s decision.
13. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in how it considered Mr X’s case to warrant our involvement and so we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman