Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide his child with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained the Council has refused to provide his child (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. Due to a change in his family’s circumstances, Mr X asked the Council to provide Y with free transport to primary school. The Council rejected Mr X’s application. It said the school Y attends is not the closest to Mr X’s home. This meant there was no entitlement to 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 said when they moved into the area the school Y attends was the closest with spaces. Mr X referred to another child who received free transport to Y’s school. Mr X said his working arrangements had changed and his wife had travelled overseas to care for a relative.
8. An independent panel 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 child was not attending the nearest suitable school there was no entitlement to free transport. The panel noted that if Mr X had originally applied for a place at his closest school, then the Council would have offered a place. The panel said it did not know why another child was accessing transport, but it considered each case on its own merits. The panel referred to the additional cost of providing transport. It considered Mr X’s circumstances but decided there were no exceptional reasons to provide transport.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with the decisions made.
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 child attends is not the closest to his home and so there is no legal entitlement to transport. The Council then considered Mr X’s appeals in line with its published policy.
11. I understand Mr X is disappointed his appeal was unsuccessful. But the panel considered 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 said the Council had not responded to his request for information about the cost of adding his child to existing transport. Mr X says this goes past his house every day.
13. I asked the Council about the existing transport, and it said it had stopped at October half-term. So, even if the Council had added Mr X’s child to this transport as an exception to policy or on a paid basis, it would no longer be available.
14. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement and so we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

15. 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