Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s request for home to school transport. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council for us to question its decision. Also, the Council has now granted transport which is the outcome Ms X wanted. An investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to different outcome or achieve anything more.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, complained about the Council’s decision not to provide her son (Y) with free transport to school. Ms X disagrees with the Council's decision. Ms X also complains about the length of time the Council took to deal with her appeal.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• 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))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Councils have a duty to provide free school transport to ‘eligible’ children. Eligible children include those attending the nearest suitable school to home and who live more than the statutory walking distance. For children of secondary school age this is three miles. Extra help with transport is available to children from low-income families. Councils also have discretionary powers to provide travel support to children not considered eligible for free transport.

What happened

7. Ms X’s son (Y) was due to start secondary school in September 2024. Ms X asked the Council to provide free transport to her choice of school (School B). The Council refused Ms X’s request. It said Y was not attending the nearest suitable school to home. The Council said School C was closer. Thie meant there was no entitlement to free transport. Ms X appealed the Council’s decision.
8. An independent panel considered Ms X’s appeal at the second stage of the Council’s appeals process. Ms X had a chance to take part in the process.
9. Ms X said she did not apply for a place at School C as she felt School B was the best school for Y. Ms X already had a child (Z) who attended School B and received free transport. This had been granted as at the time of application School B was the closest to her home. Because of work commitments Ms X could not take her children to different schools.
10. The panel considered the information provided. It confirmed there was no duty to provide free transport as Y was not attending the nearest suitable school. The decision to send Y to School B was one of parental preference. The panel decided there was not enough evidence the Council should use its discretionary powers to provide free transport. The panel refused Ms X’s appeal.

Assessment

11. 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. The Council’s original decision to refuse Ms X’s application was in line with its policy and the law. Y did not attend the nearest suitable school to home and so there was no automatic entitlement to free transport. There was no fault in the Council’s original decision.
13. Ms X then had a chance to appeal this decision, and the Council considered the appeals via its published process. From the evidence I have seen the Council considered the information provided in support of Ms X’s appeal and decided to uphold the original decision.
14. While I understand Ms X is disappointed with the Council’s decision not to provide transport, this is a decision the Council is entitled to reach. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the decision was reached for us to question it.
15. Ms X has also complained about the time the Council took to deal with her appeal. In response to her complaint the Council said it had not received the correct appeal form. When it did, the Council arranged a stage 2 appeal. In response to our enquiries the Council said it had now granted transport. This was because it had received a fresh application, and places were no longer available at School C. This meant School B was now the nearest suitable school.
16. We will not therefore start an investigation into Ms X’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered the original application and appeal. Any injustice from delay in considering Ms X’s appeal would not warrant investigation on its own. The main injustice claimed flows from the original refusal decision which the Council upheld; a quicker appeal would have simply led to the same decision. But most importantly, the Council has now granted transport. Further consideration of the complaint would not lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more. An investigation is not therefore warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide home to school transport. There is not enough evidence of fault, and the Council has now granted transport. An investigation would not achieve anything more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman