Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide the complainant’s son with home to school transport. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council for us to question its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, complained the Council has refused to provide her son (Y) with free transport to school. Y has Special Educational Needs (SEN) and an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). Ms X says work commitments mean it is not reasonable for her or Y’s father to accompany him to school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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

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

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Ms X asked the Council to provide Y with free transport to school. In September 2023 the Council refused the application on the grounds it would be reasonable for Y to walk the 0.7 mile journey if accompanied by a parent. Ms X appealed the decision at stage one and two of the Council’s appeals process. Ms X stated that work commitments made it difficult to accompany Y. In December 2023 the Council confirmed its decision to refuse transport. The Council did not feel the challenges were sufficiently exceptional for it to provide transport.
6. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman as she was unhappy with the Council’s decision. The Council told us it had not kept a copy of the clerk’s notes from the stage 2 appeal. It therefore offered a further stage 2 hearing. That appeal has now taken place and is the focus of this decision.
7. The Council has again refused Ms X’s appeal. The appeal panel noted the Council had assessed Y for Independent Travel Training (ITT) but it was not an option. The panel recognised the difficulties faced by Ms X and Y’s father in taking Y to school because of work commitments. However, the panel decided the circumstances of the case were not so exceptional it should grant transport. The panel said many families “must balance complex and difficult situations in terms of work and childcare responsibilities.”

Assessment

8. 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.
9. Having reviewed the evidence available, we will not start an investigation into Ms X’s complaint.
10. Based on the evidence I have seen the Council followed the proper process to consider Ms X’s appeal. Ms X had the chance to attend the appeal hearing but could not do so. The panel considered all the information available when it reached its decision to refuse school transport.
11. There is no fault in how the Council took its final decision and I therefore cannot question whether it was right or wrong. An investigation is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman