Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council refusing free school transport for her child. This is mainly because there is not enough evidence of fault undermining the Council’s decision.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council:
• did not provide enough school places in her area in 2023, which meant her child was not eligible for free home-to-school transport;
• wrongly assessed her child’s recent application for school transport; and
• failed to tell her about her child’s school transport eligibility during the school admissions process.
2. She says this has caused emotional harm to her child and financial hardship for the family because she must reduce her working hours or pay for private transport.

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,
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained,
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement,
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
7. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and the Government’s Statutory Guidance on Home-to-school travel (the Guidance).

Back to top

My assessment

8. This part of Mrs X’s complaint is late, so the restriction in paragraph 5 applies. I see no reason why Mrs X could not reasonably have raised a complaint with us sooner. Given the time that has passed, investigation is unlikely to lead to a meaningful outcome. For these reasons I shall not investigate this point.

Assessment of recent transport application

9. Mrs X disagrees with the Council refusing her child home-to-school transport. She says the Council did not take account of her child’s needs regarding which school was suitable for him, the safety of the walking route, or the impact on her family’s finances and working arrangements. She also complains about delays in reaching the decision.
10. The Guidance says a ‘suitable’ school, for school transport purposes, does not mean the most suitable school for a child. The nearest secondary school to the home of a child of secondary age will almost always be their nearest suitable school (provided it would be able to admit them).
11. The Council decided the nearest school to Mrs X’s home was the nearest suitable school and confirmed the school would have offered a place if Mrs X had applied. I am satisfied it was open for the Council to reach this conclusion. There is no evidence of any Educational Health Care plan naming another school. Whilst I acknowledge Mrs X believes another school may be more suitable, this does not mean the closer school is unsuitable for school transport purposes. Therefore, I do not fault the Council on this point.
12. In relation to Mrs X’s concerns about walking distance safety, I am satisfied the Council was not required to assess the safety of the walking distance as both schools were outside the legal walking distance. This is in line with the Guidance.
13. The financial and logistical impacts on the family did not necessarily mean the Council had to agree free transport. The Council was not satisfied Mrs X had provided sufficient extenuating circumstances to grant discretionary travel support. I am satisfied it was open to the Council to reach this decision.
14. On balance, I am satisfied the Council has followed proper process, considered relevant information, and made a decision in line with the Guidance and its policy. As there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making, I will not investigate this aspect of Mrs X’s complaint.
15. Any delays in the Council’s decision-making did not in themselves cause significant enough injustice to Mrs X to warrant us investigating the time taken.

Information about transport eligibility

16. Mrs X also complains the Council failed to tell her about transport eligibility during the admissions process and that this may have affected her school choice.
17. The Council’s Composite Prospectus was available on its website before parents applied for school places. This explained there was no automatic entitlement to free transport and the Council will only provide free transport to pupils who meet relevant criteria, such as attendance at the nearest suitable school. So there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify us investigating this point.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify us investigating. Any delay did not disadvantage Mrs X significantly enough to warrant us investigating the timescale in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman