Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide Mrs X’s daughter with school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complained the Council has refused to provide her daughter with free transport to school. Mrs X says the Council’s decision is discriminatory and it has failed to consider all relevant information. Mrs X says it was difficult to find information on the Council’s website and believes there is a ‘culture of rejection’.

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. 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 transport to ‘eligible’ children. These are children of statutory school age who attend a qualifying school and meet one of several eligibility criteria. These include distance from home to school, and where a child’s Special Educational Needs (SEN) prevents them from walking to school in safety, accompanied as necessary. Councils also have discretionary powers to provide free transport to children not considered eligible for free transport.

What happened

7. Mrs X’s daughter (Y) has SEN and an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). Y is four years old and attends a pre-school. Mrs X asked the Council to provide Y with free transport to her pre-school.
8. The Council refused Mrs X’s request. The Council said Y was not of statutory school age and so there was not duty to provide free transport.
9. Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision. Mrs X said the Council’s decision was a blanket refusal and it had discretionary powers to provide transport. Mrs X said the Council had failed to consider all the information she had provided. Mrs X said if Y had to walk to school, it would cause her and the whole family problems. Mrs X sent information in support her appeal.
10. An independent panel considered Mrs X’s appeal at the second stage of the Council’s appeals process. The panel considered the information provided. It confirmed there was no duty to provide free transport as Y was below statutory school age. The panel decided there was not sufficient evidence the Council should use its discretionary powers to provide free transport. The panel refused Mrs 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. Mrs X says it was hard to find relevant information on the Council’s website and suggests there is a ‘culture of rejecting requests for transport. I note Mrs X accessed the application and appeals process, so we will not consider the availability of information on the Council’s website. Also, we can only consider how the Council looked at Mrs X’s application – not how it might have dealt with applications from other parents.
13. The Council’s original decision to refuse Mrs X’s application was in line with its policy and the law. Y is not of statutory school age and so she cannot be an eligible child. There was no fault in the Council’s original decision. Mrs X had the 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 Mrs X’s appeal and decided to uphold the original decision.
14. While I understand Mrs X is disappointed with the Council’s decision not to use its discretionary powers, this is a decision the Council is entitled to reach. There is not enough evidence of fault for us to become involved.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman