Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide post-16 transport to college for his child. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to provide a taxi or mini-bus to take his daughter, Y to college.
2. The Council offered Y a mileage allowance to enable Mr X to take Y to college. Mr X says this offer is unsuitable due to work commitments. He wants the Council to provide a taxi or a mini-bus.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The law requires councils to publish a transport policy statement setting out the transport arrangements it considers necessary to facilitate attendance at education or training for learners aged 16-19. Arrangements can include a fixed mileage allowance for parents, taxi services, bus pass, etc.
8. The Council’s policy says it will consider funding or arranging transport based on the needs of the individual. 
9. The Council offered Mr X a mileage allowance towards the cost of his driving Y to school. Mr X appealed on the basis he needed to be at home due to freelance work commitments and possible future employment. Further that his wife was not a confident driver.
10. The Council considered Mr X’s reasons for appeal. It noted many families had complex childcare and working arrangements, further that he had a Motability vehicle to support his child with transport. It considered it was also a possibility that Y’s mother could undertake further training to drive Y. The Council decided that Mr X’s circumstances were not so exceptional to justify a move away from its policy.
11. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy but there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making. It considered Mr X’s circumstances and explained its decision clearly. Therefore, I will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman