Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council made a flawed decision to refuse the complainant’s application and appeal for school transport for her son. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains that the Council made a flawed decision to refuse her application and appeal for school transport for her 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. Miss X has children who attend two different schools which start and finish at the same time. She says the challenge of getting both children to and from school places pressure on her and her family. She applied for school transport assistance for her son, who has special educational needs. The Council refused the application.
6. Miss X used her right to pursue the matter through the two stages of the Council’s appeal process but was unsuccessful. She complains that the Council’s decision to refuse to provide school transport was flawed. She says the Council has failed to properly acknowledge the challenge she faces, and that the appeal panel made its decision on the basis of false information, in that it incorrectly believed that there is after-school care available to both her children.
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 Miss 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 Miss X was given the opportunity to make written representations and provide supporting evidence for the panel to consider. She attended the appeal hearing in person and was able to make her case. The weight the panel members gave to the case she made was a matter for their professional judgement. It is clear from the documents that the panel found that both schools did have some after-school provision. Miss X disagrees, but that is not a matter for the Ombudsman to determine. Having considered the evidence, the decision was for the panel to make.
9. Miss X disagrees with the panel’s decision to refuse her 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 Miss 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