Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council is at fault in refusing 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, Miss X, complains that the Council is at fault in refusing 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. Miss X’s daughter has special educational needs and attends the school named in her Education Health and Care plan. Although the school is within the two-mile statutory walking distance from Miss X’s home, she believes her daughter’s needs and the nature of the route make it unsuitable to walk to school.
6. The evidence shows that Miss X’s initial application for transport was refused on the grounds of the distance between home and school. She appealed against the decision. At the appeal hearing, the members of the Appeals Panel decided that the circumstances of the case did not provide grounds to warrant an award on the grounds of exceptional circumstances. However, it decided to use its discretion to make an award of transport until the end of January 2025. It explicitly set out that this was to allow Miss X time to make her own transport arrangements.
7. Miss X made a further appeal, requesting that the transport provision continue past the end of January 2025. She provided supporting evidence and attended the meeting of the Appeals Panel to make her case in person. The Panel decided that, as Miss X’s circumstances had not changed since it last considered the case, there were insufficient grounds on which to make a new award of transport. It is against this decision that Miss X complains.
8. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part. It is not for the Ombudsman to take a view on whether Miss X’s daughter’s circumstances are so exceptional as to warrant awarding school transport. That is a matter for the Appeals 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.
9. The case documents show that Miss 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, the decision was for them to make.
10. 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. Miss 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

11. We will not investigate Miss 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