Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application and appeal for changes to school transport arrangements for his son. We have not seen enough evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to follow the correct process before refusing to change the arrangement for his son’s 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))

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 provides school transport for Mr X’s son.
6. Mr X asked the Council to add a second address to the plan. This was to enable his son to stay with his grandparents when Mr X must travel and still get transport to and from school.
7. The Council refused the request and Mr X followed the published appeal process.
8. An appeal panel considered the request at the final stage of the process. Mr X spoke to the panel. The Council confirms the panel considered the following information:
• an outline of the appeal
• Mr X’s application for the change
• his son’s Education Health and Care Plan
• the first refusal of Mr X’s request
• the decision at the stage one of the appeal process
• the application for the stage two appeal; and
• supporting evidence provided by Mr X.
9. The Council also notes its school transport policy states:

“In accordance with statutory guidance, travel assistance will only be provided from and to a single address at which the child or young person is habitually and normally resident. Where a child splits their time equally between addresses, travel assistance will be assessed from the address which is registered with the school as the home address or, prior to admission, the address used on the relevant school admission application form.”

10. The Panel noted Mr X’s confirmation that:
• the second address is on the existing travel route
• that it is closer to the school; and
• the parents of other children on the transport do not object to the proposed change.
11. Having considered the information provided the Panel decided Mr X’s request to add a second address to his son’s travel arrangements does not meet the policy criteria. It also decided there were justifying circumstances to grant the request as an exception to its policy.
12. Mr X says one of the Councillors took a dislike to the information provided at the meeting and negatively influenced the outcome as a result. He says the information provided in the emails to and from the Council show this.
13. However, from the information I have seen there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with his application to add a second address to his son’s school transport arrangements.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have seen insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered his request to make changes to his son’s school transport arrangements.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman