Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to grant school transport assistance for the complainant’s daughter. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains that the Council is at fault in refusing her application and appeal for school transport assistance for her daughter.

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. Mrs X’s daughter was on the roll of a first school. In preparation for phase transfer, she considered the two local middle schools. Mrs X says her daughter expressed her preference for the school which is closer to the family’s home, and which some of her peers would be attending. Mrs X says this school is more suitable for her daughter than the alternative middle school, which is the catchment school for the home address. Mrs X says her daughter has special educational needs. She has a diagnosis of autism but does not have an Education Health and Care Plan.
6. Having obtained a place for her daughter at the school of her choice, Mrs X for school transport. The Council applied its school transport policy and refused the application. Mrs X used her right to appeal and attended the appeal hearing to make her case. The appeal was unsuccessful.
7. Mrs X believes the appeal panel’s decision is flawed. She argues that the school transport policy does not properly reflect the reality of local provision or provide sufficient scope to consider exceptional circumstances.
8. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. It is not for us to take a view on whether Mrs X’s daughter should be granted school transport. Rather, it is to consider whether there is evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision. There is no such evidence.
9. The Council’s school transport policy does not depart from the relevant statutory guidance. The question for us therefore is whether it was properly implemented. There is nothing to suggest that the initial decision to refuse the application was flawed. In any case, Mrs X had the right to challenge the decision by way of an appeal, which she did.
10. The appeal decision letter shows that Mrs X was able to attend the appeal hearing and make her case to the panel. The weight the panel members gave to the evidence before them is a matter for their professional judgement. Mrs X disagrees with the view the panel took, but there is no evidence of fault in the way it reached that view.
11. In the absence of evidence of fault in the way the appeal panel reached its decision to refuse Mrs X’s appeal, the Ombudsman cannot criticise its decision, or intervene to substitute an alternative view. There are therefore no grounds for us to investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman