Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support offered 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 Miss X, complained the Council had refused her application for free transport for her son (Y). Miss X appealed the Council’s decision, and it offered a Personal Transport Budget (PTB) for the remainder of the 2024/25 academic year. Miss X says the PTB is not suitable as she is unable to take Y 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, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (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

What I found

Background

6. Miss X’s son (Y) previously received transport to his school (School Z). The Council says this was provided in the 2022/23 academic year because Y supported a sibling at the same school. The Council says it provided transport during the 2023/24 academic year in error. The Council therefore withdrew transport for the 2024/25 academic year.
7. Miss X asked the Council to provide Y with transport. The Council refused Miss X’s request. It said Y did not attend the nearest suitable school to home and so there was no entitlement to free transport.
8. Miss X appealed the Council’s decision. Miss X said Y had Special Educational Needs (SEN) but did not have an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). Miss X said School Z was the nearest school which could meet his needs, and she did not want to move him to another school. Miss X explained there were other children in the family with SEN and the difficulties it would cause if the Council did not provide Y with free transport. Miss X explained that without transport Y was being forced to miss part of the school day. Miss X provided written information in support of her appeal.

Assessment

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. An independent panel considered Miss X’s appeal at the second stage of the Council’s appeals process. The panel considered the information provided. Miss X had the chance to take part in the appeal. The panel decided there was no entitlement to free transport as Y was not attending the nearest school to home. However, the panel also decided the information available to Miss X when she applied for a school place could have been more detailed. The panel therefore decided to offer a PTB for the rest of the academic year.
11. The Council’s original decision to refuse Miss X’s application was in line with its policy and the law. Y is not attending the nearest suitable school to home. This is the first test in assessing if a child is eligible for free transport. There was no fault in the Council’s original decision.
12. Miss X had the chance to appeal the Council’s decision, and it considered her appeals via its published process. From the evidence I have seen the Council considered the information provided in support of Miss X’s appeal. The decision to not uphold the appeal is one the Council was entitled to reach.
13. While I understand Miss X is disappointed with the Council’s offer of a PTB it is a decision the Council was entitled to reach. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions for us to become involved.
14. Miss X can reapply for transport for the 2025/26 academic year and if she was unhappy with the eventual outcome could make a fresh complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman