Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Miss X’s application for free home-to-school transport for her son. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council has refused to provide her son free transport to school. She says the Council’s appeal panel accepted her son’s needs but still refused transport. She says this has caused her stress.

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
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X applied for free home-to-school transport for her son, Y. Y has special educational needs (SEN) and an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). Miss X says Y struggles to walk to school because of his medical conditions. She also says her own medical conditions make it hard for her to accompany him. She applied for discretionary travel support and provided supporting evidence.
7. The council considered Miss X’s application and supporting evidence. It decided it would be reasonable for Y to travel the 0.5 miles if accompanied by a responsible adult and refused transport.
8. Miss X appealed the decision at stage one and two of the Council’s appeal’s process. The Council’s appeal panel upheld the decision saying there was insufficient medical evidence to agree school transport.
9. We will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely that we would find fault. We do not act as an appeal body and can only consider if there was fault in the way the Council made the decision.
10. The appeal panels notes show the panel considered the difficulties faced by Miss X and Y. The panel also considered information it had about Y walking to and from his previous school and took account of the Council’s school transport policy, including recognising its discretion to award school transport in exceptional circumstances. The panel explained the evidence supplied was not sufficient to award discretionary support on medical grounds. The Council properly considered each point in its policy and although Miss X disagrees with the decision, this is not evidence of fault in the way it was made.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman