Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to properly consider the complainant’s application and appeal for school transport for her daughter. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains that the Council was at fault in failing to properly consider her application and appeal for school transport for her 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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X obtained a place for her daughter at a primary school. She says the journey from home to the school is a 30-minute walk and the route is unsuitable due to her daughter‘s sensory issues. She is in receipt of Disability Living Allowance for her daughter.
6. Mrs X made an application for school transport to assist in taking her daughter to school. The application has completed the review and appeal process and has been refused. Mrs X complains that the Council has failed to properly consider the evidence she provided, and the decision is flawed. She further complains that the process was delayed, and that the location of the appeal hearing prevented her from attending.
7. It is not for the Ombudsman to take a view on whether Mrs X’s daughter should be awarded school transport. That is a matter for the Council. The question for the Ombudsman is whether there is evidence of significant fault in the way the Council considered the matter, and whether that had a demonstrable effect on the outcome.
8. The Council has apologised for the delay in completing the review of its decision, and the Ombudsman will not reconsider this aspect of the complaint. There is no evidence of any additional procedural fault.
9. The Council’s decision to refuse Mrs X’s application was based on the fact that the distance from home to school is less than the two miles set out in law. Councils must provide a process by which applicants may challenge adverse decisions on school transport applications. The Council does so by way of a two-stage review appeal process. Mrs X has completed this process.
10. The correspondence shows that Mrs X was able to make written and verbal representations to the appeal committee at the final stage of the procedure. The fact that she was unable to attend in person did not therefore disadvantage her. The weight given to the evidence was a matter for the professional judgment of the appeal committee members.
11. The committee’s decision and the reasons for it are properly set out in the decision letter and the decision itself is defensible in the circumstances of the case. Mrs X disagrees with the decision but there is no evidence of fault in the way the committee 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

12. We will not investigate Mrs 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