Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application and appeal for school transport assistance for his daughter. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains that the Council is at fault in refusing his application and appeal for school transport assistance for his daughter.

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. Mr X applied for a school place for his daughter for transfer to secondary school in September 2024. His applications for his preferred schools were unsuccessful, and his subsequent appeals for places were rejected
6. The Council offered a school place for Mr X’s daughter. He rejected this offer on the grounds that the school was not suitable. He subsequently obtained a place at another school which the Council advised him still had places available.
7. Mr X says the school is six miles from his home. He therefore applied for a free bus pass for his daughter. He believes she is entitled to school transport because the school she attends is more than the statutory three-mile walking distance from his home and there were no places available at the designated school for his address.
8. The Council refused Mr X’s application. He used his right to challenge the decision through the Council’s review and appeal process and was unsuccessful. Mr X believes the decision to refuse his appeal was flawed. He wants a place for his daughter at his first-choice school, or school transport to the school his daughter attends.
9. Mr X’s first-choice school is an Academy. It is responsible for its own admission procedures and the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to consider how it awards places. Investigation would not therefore result in Mr X’s daughter being given a place there.
10. Turning to the school transport issue, it is not for the Ombudsman to take a view on whether Mr X’s daughter should be given school transport. That is a matter for the Council. The question for us is whether there is evidence of fault in the way the Council decided the matter and, if so, whether this could have led to a flawed outcome. There is no such evidence.
11. The evidence shows that the Council has applied its school transport policy and has properly explained that Mr X’s daughter does not qualify for transport. This is because there were schools with places available closer to the home address than the school at which Mr X obtained a place for his daughter. That being the case, the decision to refuse the application and reject the review request do not appear to be flawed.
12. At appeal, the role of the independent appeal panel was to consider whether the previous decisions were correct and, if so, whether there were exceptional circumstances to justify awarding transport. The appeal panel’s decision letter shows that it did so. The weight it chose to give to the evidence presented by the Council and Mr X was a matter for the panel’s professional judgement.
13. There is no evidence of fault in the way the panel considered the appeal and reached its decision. Without such evidence, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the decision to refuse the appeal, or intervene to substitute an alternative view.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr 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