Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suspension of the complainant’s son’s school transport. Investigation would not add anything significant to the response the Council has already made, or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains that the Council suspended her son’s school transport provision without appropriate notice, having used an unlawful buckle guard on her son’s seat belt while transporting him.

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 son is entitled to school transport. She says the Council’s contractor contacted her two days before the beginning of term in January 2025 to inform her that it was suspending his service due to its inability to keep her son safe.
6. It transpired that the contractor had been using a buckle guard to prevent the unbuckling of seatbelts. However, the guard was unlawful, as it presented a risk in the event of an accident. On government advice, the Council phased out its use. Without the guard, the contractor felt unable to keep Miss X’s son safe, and suspended his transport until an appropriate harness could be obtained.
7. In her complaint to the Council, Miss X complained about the lack of notice, the distress the matter had caused, and the trouble and expense she was being put to in transporting her son to school. She further complained that the Council’s contractor’s use of an unlawful device while transporting her son had placed him at risk.
8. In response, the Council explained why it had been necessary to phase out the use of the buckle guard. It apologised for the lack of notice and the disruption the matter had caused. It also offered Mrs X the opportunity to apply for a milage allowance for the two-week period she had been compelled to transport her son herself. Miss X regards the response as inadequate and believes she should be compensated further.
9. The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. We would not seek to add to the response the Council has already made, so investigation would not lead to a different outcome. The Council has identified where it was at fault and has apologised for the distress and disruption this caused.
10. The disruption did not flow from the use of the buckle guard, but from the decision to cease to use it. The Council has apologised for the way this was done in Miss X’s son’s case and for how it impacted Miss X and her son. The disruption lasted for two school weeks and the Council has explained how Miss X can seek a milage allowance for the period.
11. An apology is an appropriate remedy in the circumstances of the case. This has already been made. Our involvement would not seek to achieve anything more or lead to a different outcome. Investigation is not therefore warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because investigation would not add anything significant to the response the Council has already made, or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman