Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about school transport because there is nothing we could add to the Council’s response. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms M complained about school transport. She provided home to school transport for her son following a mix-up by the Council. She wanted the Council to reimburse transport costs and pay compensation for the impact on her work.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation,
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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. The Council was unable to offer Ms M’s son a place at the nearest school when she moved to the area. The nearest school was 8 miles from Ms M’s home.
6. Ms M applied for home to school transport.
7. There was a mix-up by the Council. Ms M provided transport herself for nine months until it came to light the Council thought it had offered transport when in fact it had not.
8. Ms M complained. She asked the Council to pay her at the ‘mileage’ rate for the transport she provided. She also asked the Council to pay compensation for her lost earnings because she said she had not been able to get regular work.
9. The Council agreed to pay its mileage rate for four journeys per day. The Council declined to pay compensation for Ms M’s lost earnings because it said there were breakfast clubs and afterschool activities available and it did not consider the impact on Ms M’s ability to work was significant.
10. Unhappy with the outcome, Ms M complained to us. She said she had not received the payments the Council offered.
11. I contacted the Council to check on the payments. The Council confirmed that it had made two of the three payments offered and said it would contact Ms M immediately to make the final payment. The Council also offered a small symbolic payment to recognise the delay. I welcome the Council’s response.
12. There is nothing I could add to the Council’s response by investigating Ms M’s complaint further. I agree with the Council’s response and the payments it has offered are a satisfactory remedy for the mistakes the Council made. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint because there is nothing we could add to the Council’s response. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman