Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for home to school transport for her child, Y. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council refused her application for home to school transport for her child, Y. Mrs X said Y has mental health issues and struggles to travel alone to school.

2. She said the lack of school transport has resulted in Y being unable to attend school on time, causing anxiety, despite a strong enthusiasm for school. Mrs X wants the Council to provide Y with school transport to ensure their timely attendance and make the journey less stressful.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Y is a young person under the age of 19 with an Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan, currently attending a foundation course at college. Mrs X said Y's journey to college involves taking two buses and walking for an additional 15 minutes, resulting in a total travel time of approximately one hour. She states Y experiences anxiety when traveling alone on public transport, making it an unsuitable option for Y to reach college. As a result, Mrs X submitted a home to school transport application to the Council.
8. The Council has a two-stage appeal process for home to school transport applications. At stage two, the review panel considered the original decision to refuse, Mrs X’s reasons for requesting home to school transport. It acknowledged Y’s special needs, including high anxiety when traveling alone on public transport. However, it found no evidence to suggest a family member could not support Y on their journey. Additionally, the Council noted Y has no mobility or physical issues that would prevent him from using public transport when accompanied. As a result, the Council decided not to exercise its discretionary powers to provide Y with travel assistance at this time.
9. 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 you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
10. The Council considered Mrs X’s request for home to school transport in line with its transport policy, considered all available information through its two-stage appeals process. There is not enough evidence of fault in how it considered the application to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman