Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide bespoke post-16 transport to school for the complainant’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to consider his family’s needs before deciding not to provide transport to take his son to and from school while he is on a reduced timetable.
2. He says this will have a significant impact on his family. He wants the Council to use its discretion and provide transport as an exception to its policy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The law requires councils to publish a transport policy statement setting out the transport arrangements it considers necessary to facilitate attendance at education or training for learners aged 16-19. Arrangements can include a fixed mileage allowance for parents, taxi services, bus pass, etc.
7. The Council’s policy says it will consider funding or arranging transport based on the needs of the individual. However, it will not provide a bespoke service to facilitate transport to and from school outside of the normal school start and finish times.
8. Mr X’s son attends school on a reduced timetable because of his specific needs. The Council provided a taxi to take him to and from school. However, when it arranged the transport, it was not aware of the reduced timetable. On review, the Council decided it could not continue to provide a bespoke service.
9. Mr X appealed against the Council’s decision not to continue to provide a taxi to take his son to and from school. The Council considered the matter and Mr X spoke at the appeal hearing, providing information about his son’s needs and the family circumstances, including the difficulty the family will face if transport is not provided to take his son to and from school.
10. The Council considered Mr X’s reasons for appeal. It noted many families have children with complex needs and have complex childcare and working arrangements. The Council decided that Mr X’s circumstances were not so exceptional to justify a move away from its policy.
11. In line with its published policy, the Council offered to provide transport to take his son to school in the morning. It would also provide a financial contribution which Mr X could use to make his own arrangements to collect his son at the end of his short school day.
12. I appreciate Mr X is not satisfied with the Council’s offer. However, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making. It considered Mr X’s circumstances and explained its decision clearly. Therefore, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman