Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in refusing the complainant’s application and appeal for school transport for his son. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains that the Council made a flawed decision to refuse his application and appeal for school transport for his son.

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. Mr X’s son has special educational needs and an Education Health and Care (EHC) plan. He attends a mainstream primary school which is named in the EHC plan. The school is less than a mile from the family home but Mr X believes his son’s needs are such that he qualifies for school transport.
6. Mr X’s application for school transport was refused. He used his right to pursue the matter through the two stages of the Council’s appeal process and was unsuccessful. Mr X complains that the Council’s decision to refuse to provide school transport was flawed. He says the Council made the initial decision to refuse the application on the basis that his son did not have an EHC plan, and that the reasons the Council gave for not upholding his Stage 2 appeal do not apply.
7. We will not investigate this 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 Mr X’s son qualifies for school transport or, if not, whether his circumstances are so exceptional as to warrant awarding school transport at appeal. Those were matters for the appeal 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.
8. The case documents show that Mr X was given the opportunity to make written representations and provide supporting evidence for the panel to consider. The weight the panel members gave to the case he made was a matter for their professional judgement. It is also clear from the documents that the panel was aware of Mr X’s son’s EHC plan and took account of its content. Having considered the evidence, the decision was for them to make.
9. Mr X disagrees with the panel’s decision to refuse his appeal 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

10. We will not investigate Mr 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