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

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for free home to school transport for her son because he is not attending the nearest suitable school.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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))
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Council’s Home to School Travel Policy.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mrs X applied for free home to school transport for her son. The Council refused the application. It explained he did not meet the criteria for free school transport because he is not attending the nearest suitable school.
9. The Council’s Home to School Travel Policy states there is no entitlement to school travel when parents/carers choose to send their child to a school other than the nearest suitable qualifying school or one of the qualifying schools for families that meet the extended rights eligibility criteria.
10. Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision via its two stage appeal process and provided additional information in support of her appeal and reasons for choosing the school. Mrs X also referred to the Council’s decision to award her older son a travel pass to the same school in 2020 and raised concerns about the safety of the walking route to the school.
11. The Council considered the additional information Mrs X provided but upheld the decision to refuse the application in line with the policy. It reconfirmed, as it had at earlier stages, that her older child’s 2020 application was refused on the basis he was not eligible. However, the Council awarded a discretionary travel pass to him because, due to restrictions in place due to the Covid-19 pandemic, it was unable to hear the stage two appeal within the required timescales. This did not mean that her younger child’s application would also succeed. Each application is assessed against the relevant criteria. It also confirmed the route has been assessed by its Road Safety Team as safe to walk.
12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. It has considered, decided and refused the application in line with the eligibility criteria set out in its published policy. The decision is one it is entitled to make. Mrs X exercised parental choice in applying to her preferred school for her son, which is not the nearest suitable school. However, this does mean he does not meet the qualifying criteria for free home to school transport. This is clearly set out in the Council’s published policy and parents are advised to read the relevant guidance before submitting their application.
13. We are 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 the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider, as here, that it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Mrs X disagrees with the decision it made.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs 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