Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in refusing the complainant’s application and appeals for education 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 was at fault in refusing her application and appeal for education 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’s son has special educational needs and an Education Health and Care plan. Miss X applied for post-16 discretionary transport assistance to enable her son to travel to college. Her complaint concerns the Council’s response to her application and subsequent appeals.
6. Miss X’s son qualifies for transport assistance. In line with its post-16 discretionary transport policy the Council initially offered Mrs X the monetary equivalent of a bus pass. She appealed against the Council’s decision on the grounds that the offer was unsuitable.
7. The Council operates a two-stage appeal process for education transport appeals. Miss X’s appeal has completed both stages of this process. At both stages she had the opportunity to make her case and provide supporting evidence. At Stage 1 the appeal panel upheld the appeal. It decided to replace the initial award with a personal transport budget.
8. Miss X used her right to go to Stage 2, at which the matter was reconsidered. The Stage 2 appeal panel upheld the award made at Stage 1. Miss X says that, given her son’s needs and her family’s circumstances, the award of a personal transport budget will not ensure her son can get to college. She wants the Council to provide him with transport.
9. The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part. It is not for us to take a view on what form the Council’s discretionary transport assistance should take. Rather, the question for us is whether there is evidence of significant fault in the way the Council considered the matter. There is no such evidence.
10. Miss X was able to make her case to the Council and provide supporting evidence. It was for the appeal panel members to decide what weight to give to the case she presented and to use their professional judgment to make a decision. Miss X disagrees with the decisions the appeal panels made but that does not mean they amount to fault. Without evidence of fault in the way the decisions were made, the Ombudsman cannot criticise those decisions or intervene to substitute an alternative view. Investigation is not therefore warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman