Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide Mrs X’s son with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complained about the Council’s decision not to provide her son (B) with free transport to school. Mrs X questions how the Council measures distances from home to school and the information available to parents.

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. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X asked the Council to provide B with free transport to his secondary school (School Z). The Council refused because it said there was a closer school to home (School Y) which B could attend. This meant B did not qualify for free transport.
7. Councils must apply the law and their transport policy when deciding entitlement to school transport. But they also have the discretion to consider exceptional circumstances. They must have a review or appeal process by which to do so. The Department for Education (DfE) has produced statutory guidance (the Guidance) which outlines council’s responsibilities regarding home to school transport.
8. Mrs X has appealed the Council’s decision. Mrs X said that by using publicly available systems School Z was closer than School Y. Even if the Council’s measurements were accepted, there was only a 0.11 mile difference. Mrs X said information on the school admissions section of the Council’s website showed School Z to be closer to her home. Mrs X quoted the Guidance which states “it should also be clear to parents how they can find out which is their nearest school for admissions purposes and whether this is also their nearest school for travel purposes.” Mrs X also explained why she wanted B to attend School Z.
9. An independent panel considered Mrs X’s stage 2 appeal. The panel considered information from Mrs X, the Council’s transport policy, and the original decision to refuse Mrs X’s request. During the appeal the Council explained it uses its own system to measure distances for home to school transport. This was different to the admissions system and the distances used for the purpose of school admissions. Using the Council’s own system School Y was closer – as were two other schools. If Mrs X had applied for a place at School Y then it would have offered B a place. The Council’s view was that it was parental choice to send B to School Z and there was no entitlement to free transport.
10. The panel considered the information presented. It decided the Council had properly applied its published policy and the law. While the panel accepted the distances from Mrs X’s home to Schools Y and Z were very similar, there was no entitlement to free transport. The panel decided there were no exceptional circumstances warranting free transport and refused Mrs X’s appeal.
11. The Ombudsman is not a right of further appeal. We cannot question decisions where the proper process has been followed and if the Council’s decision making is not flawed.
12. The issue at the heart of this case is the Council’s measurement of distances. The Guidance is clear that when a council is comparing the distances of schools, and they are beyond the statutory walking distance (three miles in this case) it is for the Council to decide how to measure the distances. This can be different to how councils measure the distances for school admissions purposes.
13. In this case the Council uses its own system, and this is explained on its website. That is a decision the Council is entitled to take. There is no requirement to provide an online system or maps for parents to check transport eligibility. But I note the Council’s position is that parents can contact it to check which school is the closest. The Council’s admissions and transport policies are both explained on its website. There is not enough evidence of fault here for us to question the Council’s position.
14. The Council therefore correctly applied the law and its policy when it rejected Mrs X’s original application. The appeals panel then considered her case in line with the Council’s published policy. It considered information from Mrs X and the Council. Mrs X had the chance to take part in the appeals process and to present her case. The panel’s letter is detailed and explained its decision.
15. I understand Mrs X is disappointed with the Council’s decision but there is not enough evidence of fault in how it was reached to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to question the merits of the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman