Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in declining the complainant’s application and appeals for school transport assistance for her son. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains that the Council was at fault in declining her application and appeals for school transport assistance for her son.

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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X’s son has special educational needs (SEN) and an Education Health and Care (EHC) plan. He attends the school named in the EHC plan, which is within the statutory two-mile walking distance.
6. Mrs X applied for school transport assistance. The Council refused the application and her subsequent appeals at both stages of the appeals procedure. Mrs X says her son is not capable of walking to the school safely and therefore qualifies for school transport. She argues that the Council’s transport policy is flawed and the decisions it made were unreasonable. She further complains that the Council’s SEN officers failed to support her.
7. Whether Mrs X’s son should be awarded school transport assistance is not a matter for the Ombudsman. Our role is to take a view on whether there is evidence of significant fault in the way the Council made its decisions, and whether it is likely that such fault led to an outcome which would not otherwise have been the case. There is no such evidence.
8. Mrs X is critical of the Council’s school transport policy, particularly as it relates to SEN. It is clear however that the published policy takes proper account of the relevant statutory guidance, including that relating to SEN. The question therefore is whether it was properly implemented. The correspondence and evidence Mrs X has provided indicates that it was. The initial decision to refuse the application and the decision to refuse the Stage 1 appeal do not appear to be flawed. In any case, Mrs X had the right to the independent scrutiny provided by a Stage 2 appeal. That was the forum in which to challenge the Stage 1 outcome.
9. Mrs X is critical of the conduct of the Stage 2 appeal panel meeting and of the panel’s decision. She argues that the Council’s officer was insensitive in his approach, and that the panel acted with bias. She also contends that the letter setting out the decision was inaccurate and omitted evidence her advocate had presented.
10. The purpose of the decision letter is to set out the decision and the reasons for it. It is not required to provide a record of everything said during the hearing. The decision letter demonstrates that Mrs X was able to make her case. The weight the Panel gave to the evidence is a matter for the professional judgement of the panel members. 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 professional judgement, or intervene to substitute an alternative view. There are insufficient grounds for us to investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman