Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr and Mrs X’s application for post-16 transport. The injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainants, Mr and Mrs X, complained about the Council’s handling of their application for post-16 transport for their child. Mr and Mrs X say the Council was late paying a Personal Transport Budget (PTB) causing financial hardship. Mr and Mrs X want the Council to change its processes to avoid problems in the future.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (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. In response to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint the Council apologised for the delay. It explained the Council receives a high number of applications each year and there were other issues which meant the PTB could not be paid at the start of term. This was eventually processed on 16 October – the day after the Council’s stage 1 complaint response.
6. While I understand Mr and Mrs X’s frustrations, we will not start an investigation into their complaint. The Council has explained the delay and apologised. It is not for us to say how the Council should process its applications for transport support.
7. The delay of six weeks to make the payment is also not significant enough to warrant the Ombudsman investigating. As a publicly funded body it would not be a good use of our resources to consider this complaint further as it is unlikely we would recommend a financial remedy.
8. An investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome and is not therefore justified.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because the injustice is not significant enough and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman