Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide the complainant’s child with home to school transport. This is because there is inadequate evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s decision not to provide her child with home to school transport.

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))
3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The evidence shows the Council has applied its school transport policy and has properly explained that Ms X’s son does not qualify for transport. This is because there are schools with places available closer to the home address than the school at which her son attends. That being the case, the decision to refuse the application and reject the review request do not appear to be flawed.
7. At appeal, the role of the independent appeal panel was to consider whether the previous decisions were correct and, if so, whether there were exceptional circumstances to justify awarding transport. The appeal panel’s decision letter shows that it did so.
8. The panel noted Ms X’s health issues and that she cannot accompany him on his journey to and from school. However, the Council school transport policy states:

“The County Council will not consider assistance where one parent is unable to accompany the child to school due to work commitments nor will it usually consider it necessary to provide assistance to secondary school aged pupils, as they will usually be deemed to be capable of walking to school unaccompanied.”

9. There is no evidence of fault in the way the panel considered the appeal and reached its decision. Without such evidence, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the decision to refuse the appeal or intervene to substitute an alternative view.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision not to award school transport for her son.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman