Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the outcome of the complainant’s application and appeals for education transport for her son. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant the Ombudsman’s intervention.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains that the Council’s award of education transport does not meet her son’s needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X’s son, who I will refer to as Y, has a diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder and an Education Health and Care plan. Until he entered post-16 education the Council delivered Y’s entitlement to education transport by providing him with a seat on dedicated transport to and from school.
6. Mrs X made an application for post-16 education transport for Y. Where the Council makes post-16 transport provision, it normally does so by providing a free bus pass, In Y’s case, it made an enhanced award, including an offer of independent travel training, in addition to the bus pass.
7. Mrs X used her right to appeal against the Council’s award. The Council operates a two-stage appeal procedure which gives appellants two opportunities to have the matter reconsidered, and to provide new arguments and evidence if they choose.
8. At Stage 1 of the appeal process the Council declined to change the original award, so Mrs X chose to go to the next stage. At Stage 2 she made new supporting evidence available and attended the meeting of the appeal panel with her husband. The evidence shows that they were given the opportunity to address the appeal panel.
9. The appeal panel’s decision was to change the award to an enhanced personal budget, including adjustments to the usual milage limit and parental contribution. Mrs X argues that this decision was based on a false assumption regarding her husband’s ability to pick Y up in the afternoons and does not meet his needs.
10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part. It is not for the Ombudsman to take a view on whether the Council’s award is appropriate for Y. That is for the appeal panel to decide. The question for us is whether there is evidence of significant fault in the way the panel considered the matter and, if so, whether that had a demonstrable effect on the outcome. There is no such evidence.
11. The case documents show that Mrs X had the opportunity to make representations and provide supporting evidence for the panel to consider. The weight the panel members gave to the case she made was a matter for their professional judgement. Having considered the evidence, the decision was for them to make.
12. Mrs X disagrees with the panel’s decision but there is no evidence of fault in the way the panel members used their judgement. That being the case, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the decision or intervene to substitute an alternative view.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman