Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide her son with home to school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complained about the Council’s decision not to provide her son with free transport to 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 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))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X’s son (Y) attended School Z. Chelmsford City Council (CCC) rehoused Mrs X a considerable distance from School Z. Mrs X asked Essex County Council (the Council) to provide Y with free transport. The Council refused. It said there were many schools closer to Mrs X’s new address and so Y did not qualify for free transport.
7. Mrs X appealed the decision. She explained Y was settled at School Z. Mrs X also explained she was appealing the suitability of the accommodation CCC had offered. Mrs X explained Y could not walk to school unaccompanied and he had not been able to secure a place at the local school.
8. A senior officer considered Mrs X’s appeal at the final stage of the Council’s appeals process. They decided the original decision to refuse transport was correct. They considered the information Mrs X had provided. Having considered all the information available, they decided not to provide transport. Their letter to Mrs X explained the decision.
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 someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
10. In this case the Council followed its published process to consider Mrs X’s application and appeal. The Council’s original decision to refuse Mrs X’s application was in line with its policy and the law. When a child does not attend the nearest suitable school to home there is no entitlement to free transport.
11. Mrs X then had the chance to appeal the Council’s decision. From the evidence I have seen the Council considered the information provided in support of Mrs X’s appeal. The decision to not uphold the appeal is one the Council was entitled to reach.
12. While I understand Mrs X is disappointed with the Council’s decision there is not enough evidence of fault in how it was reached for us to become involved.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman