Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse school transport for the complainant’s daughter. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council was at fault in refusing to provide school transport for his daughter, whom I shall call B.

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 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council refused Mr X’s application for school transport for B. This is because she is not attending the nearest suitable school to the family home.
6. Mr X disputes the distances stated by the Council. He says the school B attends is the nearest school. He used his right to appeal against the Council’s decision.
7. The Council’s Transport Review Panel refused his appeal.
8. The notes from the meeting show the panel noted the distances stated by the Council’s transport team and Mr X were different. It decided to use the GIS mapping system used by the school admissions team to clarify the matter. This confirms there is a suitable school nearer to Mr X’s home than the school he chose for B to attend. The Panel acknowledged the distance is minimal.
9. Mr X says the panel refused to make a discretionary award for transport. However, the notes from the meeting show he appealed for discretionary transport for the following reasons:
• Many of B’s friends attend the same school.
• B is suffering from anxiety because of the refusal to provide transport.
• There is no safe walking route to the school which B attends and which is more than three miles from home; and
• The school B attends should be the natural follow-on school for children attending her previous, primary school.
10. The Panel noted:
• The nearest secondary school will almost always be the nearest suitable school as defined in the Government’s statutory guidance for school transport.
• There are no medical or special needs noted for B. Panel members acknowledged her anxiety, the fact her friends attend the current school and the school is the one which Mr X believes is most suitable. However, they could not support the appeal for these reasons.
• There is no link between the primary and secondary school as suggested by Mr X.
11. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and we cannot take a view on whether B’s circumstances are so exceptional as to warrant upholding the appeal and awarding school transport. That is a matter for the members of 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.
12. The case documents show that Mr X was able 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. Having considered the evidence, they decided not to award transport. That was their decision to make.
13. 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. Mr X disagrees with the decision but there is no evidence of fault in the way the panel members used their judgement. Therefore we cannot criticise the decision or suggest an alternative view.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have seen no evidence in the Council’s decision not to award school transport for his daughter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman