Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (24 010 221)
Category : Education > School transport
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 19 Nov 2024
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide transport for Miss X’s child to start late each morning at school. This is because the Council reached its decision properly after considering the evidence Miss X provided, and we are therefore not able to substitute another view.
The complaint
- Miss X said the Council wrongly refused to provide transport to school for her child to allow a later start to the school day. She said this was contrary to medical opinion and despite her child suffering significant discomfort.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- The Ombudsman’s role in deciding if there has been fault by the Council does not extend to reaching a view on whether the child should receive transport to allow a later arrival at school. Nor can we find fault on the basis that the Council’s decision seems harsh or unfair. We can only recommend the Council organise a fresh appeal if there was procedural fault in its original consideration of the evidence put forward.
- I have looked at the correspondence Miss X provided from a hospital specialist and the family GP carefully. For obvious reasons, the view of the specialist would be particularly important. If either of these person’s stated the child’s medical condition meant there must be a later start to school, then the expectation would be that the child would require transport to allow a later arrival. It would also be fault if the Council failed to show it had considered the evidence Miss X put forward in reaching its decision.
- In declining the appeal for transport at a later time than usual, the Council took the view that the evidence put forward did not mean that there was a need to do this.
- The letter from the hospital consultant recorded that the child had experienced difficulties concentrating at school because of a condition that caused irritation to their eyes, which was treated by eye drops.. This letter did not state the child needed to make a delayed start to the school day. The letter from the family’s GP did not state this either, but instead stated that he supported Miss X’s decision that the child should start school later each day. The Council was entitled to decide that the doctor’s letter was not a recommendation for Miss X to follow, but a statement of support for a decision she had already taken. It was also entitled to take the view there was no direct medical statement that the child needed to start school later each day, and that avoiding known triggers such as open windows and heaters would assist.
- There is no doubt that the Council could have reached a different view and provided transport to allow a later start time for the child. Its decision might be harsh. But it was a decision it was entitled to make because it considered the evidence put forward and did not directly contradict it.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of procedural fault in the way the Council reached its decision to warrant investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman