Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainants’ request to vary the schedule of her children’s school transport. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains that the Council made a flawed decision to refuse her appeal to vary the time school transport returns her children home after 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X’s children received home to school transport arranged due to her disability. The school transport was arranged by her social worker. She says it was withdrawn without notice. Following representations, the Council reinstated the transport on a discretionary basis.
6. Miss X complains that when the transport was reinstated, the Council changed the time of the pick-up after school from 5.15 pm to 3.30 pm. She says this change prevents the children from accessing activities after school which she, because of her mobility issues, cannot provide for them.
7. Miss X asked the Council to change the pick-up time back to 5.15 pm. Her request has completed the school transport review and appeal procedure and has been refused. It is against this decision, which Miss X regards as amounting to discrimination on the grounds of disability, that her complaint lies.
8. In its letter setting out its decision to refuse Miss X’s appeal, the Council quotes the part of the statutory guidance on which it has relied. This is paragraph 63 of the Travel to school for children of compulsory school age guidance, which sets out that the Council’s school transport duty does not extend to enabling attendance at activities after school.
9. It is Miss X’s contention that the Council has applied the statutory guidance without reference to its public sector equality duty, and that its decision amounts to disability discrimination. She argues that its use of what she regards as random and selective statements without legal context amounts to bullying. She wants the Council to agree to her request to change the afternoon pick-up time.
10. The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part. Miss X’s request to vary the pick-up time is, in effect, a request that the Council provide a service the relevant statutory guidance specifically excludes from its duty.
11. The quoting of paragraph 63 in the decision letter is not random, and is only selective insofar as it is the relevant part of the statutory guidance which sets out the limits of the Council’s duty. The Ombudsman would not find that applying relevant statutory guidance when making a decision, and quoting that guidance in the decision notification, amounts to fault. There are therefore insufficient grounds for us to intervene. Whether it amounts here to disability discrimination in law is a matter which could only be definitively determined in court.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman