Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges for post-16 school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complained about the amount the Council said she would need to contribute to her child’s post-16 school transport. Mrs X is unhappy that despite the Council only offering transport from February 2025, it wanted to charge the full annual amount. Mrs X also says the Council delayed dealing with her appeal which led to the transport offer which is the subject of this complaint.

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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X asked the Council to provide her child with post-16 school transport. The Council refused and Mrs X appealed. The Council offered Mrs X the chance to purchase a spare seat on an existing council service. The Council said Mrs X would need to pay the full annual amount. Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s position which would require her to pay for a whole year’s pass which her child would only use for part of the year.
6. While I understand Mrs X’s frustrations, we will not start an investigation.
7. It is for the Council to decide its charging arrangements for school transport. We could only criticise the Council’s position if it had clearly deviated from a published policy or legislation.
8. Based on the evidence available there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council for us to investigate. The Council’s travel policy for young persons of sixth form age states:

“If the Council agrees to provide travel assistance then its policy is to provide this in the form of a Personal Transport Budget (see Appendix 6) or a Travel Pass…The Birmingham City Council 16-18 Transport provision is a subsidised offer and the young person and / or his or her parents or carers will be required to contribute towards the cost of this…The amount that will be required is £1028 per academic year or £390 if the young person is from a low-income family. The payment is a contribution towards the cost of providing travel assistance and the Council will fund the balance.”

9. The above states how much the charge is and that parents / the young person are required to pay. The Council will then pay the balance. There is no reference to reduced charges for young people who only travel part way through the year. We could not therefore say the Council has failed to follow a published policy in such a way that warrants our involvement. There is no evidence the Council has breached statutory guidance on home to school transport. We will not therefore investigate.
10. Mrs X also says the Council was slow to deal with her appeal and asked for her child to be able to travel without charge for the remainder of the year. If Mrs X had paid for her child to travel, we may have considered the delay issue and if it had disadvantaged Mrs X. But because Mrs X did not take up the Council’s offer of paid transport, we could not say any delay caused Mrs X an injustice which warrants our involvement. We will not therefore investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman