Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for free home to school transport for his child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for free school transport for his child on the basis she is not attending the nearest qualifying school.

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)
3. We do not start 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))
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Council’s home to school travel assistance policy.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Local authorities must make suitable home to school travel arrangements as they consider necessary for ‘eligible children’ of compulsory school age to attend their ‘qualifying school’. The travel arrangements must be made and provided free of charge. The relevant qualifying school is the nearest school with places available that provides education appropriate to the age, ability and aptitude of the child, and any special educational needs the child may have. ‘Eligible children’ include:

• children living outside ‘statutory walking distance’ from the school (two miles for children under eight, three miles for children aged eight and above);
• children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot reasonably be expected to walk to school because of their special educational needs, disability or mobility problem;
• children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot walk to school because the route is unsafe; and
• children entitled on low-income grounds. (Education Act 1996, 508B(1) and Schedule 35B)

9. Mr X applied for free home to school transport for his daughter.
10. The Council refused the application because she is not attending the nearest qualifying school to her home address. This meant she did not meet the criteria set out in its transport policy for free home to school transport. The school she attends, her catchment school, is 0.28 miles further away than the nearest school.
11. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision via the two stage appeal process and provided additional information in support of his application. This included information about other children living at the same postcode previously being granted free school transport to the school; his reasons for choosing the school for his daughter and differences between the school admission policy and the school transport policy.
12. The appeal committee considered the information Mr X provided and addressed the points he raised. It found the application had been decided according to the Council’s school transport policy and it did not consider there were exceptional circumstances to cause it to agree the application outside of the Council’s policy. It clearly explained the reasons for its decision to Mr X.
13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead we look at the processes an organisation has followed to make its decision. If we considered it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with the decision it made.
14. The Council followed the correct process in considering Mr X’s application and appeals. It took account of its own policies and the information Mr X provided. Mr X was able to use the 2 stage appeal process and it considered and addressed the information he provided and clearly explained its decision. Whilst I acknowledge Mr X is dissatisfied with the decision, there is no sign of fault in how it was reached and so it does not warrant an investigation by us.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman