Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his request to provide home to school transport for his child, Y. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly refused his application for his child, Y’s, home to school transport from his address as well as Y’s mother’s address. Mr X said the matter caused him distress.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Y is a child in the Council’s area. Y spends time at at both their mother’s address and their father’s, Mr X’s, address. However, Y spends more than 50% of the school week at their mother’s address.
6. The Council awarded Y a bus pass as an eligible child for free home to school transport due to the distance from their mother’s address. In September 2024, Mr X wrote to the Council and asked it to provide transport from his address as well.
7. The Council considered Mr X’s request at stage one of the review process. It rejected Mr X’s request. It told Mr X its policy is to provide transport from one home where the child spends most of the time during the school week. It also explained that, if a child spends equal time at more than one address, it will provide transport from the nearest home. It told Mr X that because Y spends most of their time at their mother’s address, his request was rejected.
8. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision. He explained Y has autism and ADHD.
9. In November 2024 the Council held a stage two panel. Mr X was able to make his representations to the panel. However, the Council decided not to award transport from Mr X’s address. It explained its policy and national guidance determined it did not have to provide transport. It also considered its discretionary powers alongside Y’s disabilities but decided not to provide transport.

Analysis

10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
11. Based on the information seen, there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council decided Y should only be provided with home to school transport from their mother’s address.
12. The Council considered Mr X’s appeals and the additional information he provided. It considered its discretionary powers as well as Y’s individual circumstances but ultimately decided not to provide transport from Mr X’s address in line with its policy and the national guidelines. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman, and so we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman