Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application and appeal for school transport for her son. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to fully consider her appeal against its decision to refuse her application 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 Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council refused Ms X’s application for school transport for her son. She appealed against the decision. The matter has completed the two stages of the Council’s appeal process and has been refused. Ms X wants the Council to reconsider the matter and award school transport.
6. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part. The Ombudsman is not an appeal service. We consider whether there is evidence of significant fault in the way the Council’s Appeal Panel considered the matter and, if so, whether that had a demonstrable effect on the outcome. We have not seen such evidence.
7. The information we have seen shows Ms X was able to make written representations and provide supporting evidence for the Panel to consider. She attended the appeal hearing with a person supporting her. They made verbal representations.
8. The weight the Panel members gave to the case was a matter for their professional judgement. Having considered the evidence, the decision was for them to make.
9. The Council noted Ms X’s preferred school for her son is a mainstream academy school. It’s Special Educational Needs Assessment and Review Team (SENART) had accepted her request to name her preferred school in her son’s Education Health and Care Plan, specifically stating it agreed to name the school on the condition the parents will be responsible for home to school transport costs.
10. Council officers advised the Panel there are five closer mainstream schools than the preferred school. They also noted the catchment school would be able to meet the child’s needs.
11. Ms X says the Council had not asked the catchment school whether it can meet her son’s needs before making the decision to refuse her application for school transport.
12. However, the Council noted the current school confirms he is attending in its mainstream setting. The letter from SENART states the closest mainstream school is able to meet his needs and could be named in his Education, Health and Care Plan instead of the preferred school.
13. Ms X disagrees with the Panel’s decision to refuse her appeal but there is no evidence of fault process. That being the case, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the decision or intervene to substitute an alternative view.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered her application for home to school transport.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman