Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide post 16 transport to college. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council has refused to provide her daughter (Y) with post 16 transport to college. The Council has instead offered a Personal Transport Budget (PTB). Mrs X says because of her work commitments this is not a suitable option. Mrs X says the Council did not properly consider her appeal, give her enough time or help, and the Council’s system refused to accept certain documents.

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 applied for home to college transport for Y who has an Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council offered Y a PTB in line with its post-16 transport policy.
6. Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision as she wanted it to provide transport due to being unable to transport Y herself.
7. In line with the Council’s post-16 transport policy a stage 2 panel considered Mrs X’s appeal. The panel looked at whether there was evidence to support that council organised transport was the only option for Y.
8. The Council’s policy states a PTB will be the usual offer where a young person is eligible for support. Council organised transport is only offered in exceptional circumstances. The Council’s policy states that parental work arrangements will not normally mean it will make an exception to its policy.
9. The panel refused Mrs X’s appeal.
10. 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 someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
11. The evidence I have seen shows the Council offered a later appeal date for Mrs X as she could not make the original date offered. There was the chance for Mrs X to email evidence in support of her appeal and the Council reminded her of this. If Mrs X had problems uploading documents, then she could have contacted the Council. I note on the day of the hearing Mrs X referred to the documents she had in support of her case. It was for Mrs X to decide what evidence she presented in support of her case. I see no evidence of fault by the Council in the administration of the hearing.
12. The Council’s original decision to offer a PTB was in line with its published policy. Mrs X had the chance to appeal this decision, and the Council considered her appeals via its published process. Mrs X had the chance to present her case, and the panel considered information from Mrs X and the Council. The panel’s letter to Mrs X explained its decision.
13. While I understand Mrs X is disappointed with the Council’s decision there is not enough evidence of fault for us to become involved.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman