Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse free school transport for his child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse free school transport for his child. Mr X believes the school his child attends, is closer to his property than the school the Council has considered.

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))
3. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complains about the refusal of the Council to provide free school transport for his child.
7. Local authorities must make suitable home to school travel arrangements as it considers necessary for ‘eligible children’ of compulsory school age to attend their ‘qualifying school’. The travel arrangements must be made and provided free of charge. The relevant qualifying school is the nearest school with places available that provides education appropriate to the age, ability and aptitude of the child, and any special educational needs the child may have.
8. The Council’s policy says it will provide free transport to school where the child attends their nearest available secondary school and where they live more than 3 miles away from the school.
9. The Council rejected Mr X’s application because his child does not go to the nearest available qualifying school. An appeal panel considered the case and agreed with the Council’s decision to refuse the application.
10. Records show the Council and appeals panel considered Mr X’s claim there was an alternative route to his chosen school, making it the nearest suitable school. But the Council assessed the safety of the route and decided this was not suitable, giving clear reasons in support.
11. While Mr X remains unhappy with the decision taken by the Council, 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.
12. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making. The Council considered Mr X’s application in line with its policy. It then examined the alternative route suggested by Mr X and considered this as part of its appeal’s process.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman