Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide her child 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 Miss X, complained the Council has refused to provide her daughter (Y) 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. Miss X’s daughter (Y) has special educational needs and an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). Y was due to start secondary school in September 2024 and Miss X asked the Council to provide her with free transport. The Council refused Miss X’s application on the basis it was 0.5 miles from Miss X’s home to school. The Council said Y was 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. Miss X appealed the Council’s decision. Miss X said she could not take Y to school as she had two other children to look after. Miss X said Y had SEN and needed a place on a bus to get to school. Miss X said she had her own health issues.
8. An independent panel considered Miss X’s appeal at the final stage of the Council’s appeals process. Miss X did not attend the appeal. The panel considered the information from Miss X. The panel decided the original application had been correctly handled. The panel decided there was not enough evidence to show Y could not walk to school accompanied by Miss X. The panel noted because Miss X had not attended the hearing, they could not explore the basis of her appeal.
9. I understand Miss 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 was not at fault when it rejected Miss X’s original application. The Council then considered Miss 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.
11. In her complaint to the Ombudsman Miss X said the Council did not ask for evidence of Y’s SEN. But it was for Miss X to decide what information to send in support of her appeal. Miss X was given the chance to present her case. If Miss X has information she thinks is relevant she should send it to the Council.
12. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in how it considered Miss X’s case to warrant our involvement and so we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman