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 home to school transport for his son because he is not attending his nearest qualifying school. Mr X says other children in the village have been granted school transport and there is no reason why his son should not receive it as the school he attends is over 3 miles away. Mr X says his son is suffering from mental health issues due to this decision and they are now considering home schooling.

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 for under 16 year olds.
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 son. The Council refused his application because his son is not attending the nearest qualifying school. The school, which was their first and only preference, is not the nearest school to their home address. It confirmed that had Mr X applied for a place at the closest school during the admission process his son would have been given a place there. This school is less than 3 miles from the home address. The school they chose is more than 3 miles from the home address, but as it is not the nearest suitable school he does not qualify for school transport on distance grounds.
10. Mr X appealed the decision via the two stage appeal process. The independent review panel considered the additional information Mr X provided in support of the appeal. It upheld the decision not to provide school transport assistance for his son as he did not meet the eligibility criteria set out in the policy. It found there were not sufficient grounds for it to agree the application outside of the policy.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council here. It followed the correct process in deciding the application and did so in line with its published policy. Mr X then used the 2 stage appeal process. It considered the information he provided in support of the application and clearly explained its decision not to agree the appeal.
12. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at the Council’s decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead we look at the processes it followed to make its decision. If, as here, we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question it. Whilst I acknowledge Mr X is dissatisfied with the decision, there is no sign of fault in the way it was reached and so we will not investigate it.

Back to top

Final decision

13. 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