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

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for free home-to-school transport for her child. She says this has caused her stress and frustration.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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 Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X applied for free home-to-school transport for her child, Y. She says the closest suitable school was not on a safe walking route from home.
7. Councils have a duty to provide free home-to-school transport for legally eligible children. Y does not meet any of the legal grounds for free transport.
8. The Council can also provide free transport for children who are not automatically legally eligible but who qualify under the Council’s home-to-school transport policy.. The part of the Council’s policy relevant to Y says get a child aged 8 to 16 must be attending the nearest available and suitable school. The child must also live more than three miles from the school by a safe walking route.
9. The Council considered Mrs X’s application and supporting evidence. It refused her application because Y is attending a school Mrs X preferred, which is not the nearest suitable school.
10. Mrs X appealed the decision at stage one and two of the Council’s appeals process. The Council’s appeal panel upheld the decision, saying Y was not attending the nearest suitable school to the home address that could have offered a place. The panel recognised it could agree transport in extenuating circumstances but did not judge the circumstances here warranted that.
11. 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.
12. The appeals panel decision shows the panel considered the distances from the nearest available schools to Y’s address. It established that Y would have been allocated a place at one of the three nearest suitable schools. The Council properly considered each point in its policy, the information it had about Y’s case and the possibility of giving transport in extenuating circumstances. Although Mrs X disagrees with the decision, this is not evidence of fault in the way it was made.
13. Mrs X argues the Council’s position is inconsistent as she reports the Council has given free transport to children in similar circumstances. The key point for us is whether Y not having free transport results directly from any fault by the Council. The evidence does not suggest evidence of fault in how the Council decided Y’s case. In that context, it would be disproportionate for us to investigate the Council’s decision-making in other cases.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman