Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in refusing the complainant’s appeal for school transport for her son. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains that the Council was at fault in refusing her appeal for school transport for her son.

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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X’s son has special educational needs and was previously provided with school transport by the Council. Ms X says the provision of transport facilitated his attendance at school and helped him to access education consistently. Following a review of eligibility under the relevant statutory guidance, the Council withdrew his transport.
6. Ms X used her right to appeal against the Council’s decision. The Council’s Education Appeals Panel refused her appeal. It found that the case Ms X made did not show that there were exceptional circumstances to justify making an award of school transport. Ms X believes the panel’s decision was flawed. She argues that it failed to take proper account of her son’s needs and the Council’s responsibilities under equalities law.
7. It is not for the Ombudsman to take a view on whether Ms X’s son’s circumstances are so exceptional as to warrant upholding her appeal and awarding school transport. That is a matter for the members of the appeal panel. The question for the Ombudsman is whether there is evidence of significant fault in the way the panel considered the matter and, if so, whether that had a demonstrable effect on the outcome. There is no such evidence.
8. The case documents show that Ms X was able to make written representations and provide supporting evidence for the panel to consider. She attended the appeal hearing and made verbal representations. The weight the panel members gave to the case she made was a matter for their professional judgement. Having considered the evidence, they took the view that Ms X’s son could travel to school accompanied as necessary. That was their decision to make.
9. The panel’s decision and the reasons for it are properly set out and the decision itself is defensible in the circumstances of the case. Ms X disagrees with the decision but there is no evidence of fault in the way the panel members used their judgement. That being the case, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the decision or intervene to substitute an alternative view.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms 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