Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainants’ application and appeal for home to school transport assistance for their children. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant our intervention.

The complaint

1. The complainants, Mr and Mrs X, complain that the Council unreasonably refused their application and appeal for school transport for their children.

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. Mr and Mrs X applied for school transport for their children for transfer to secondary education. The Council refused the application on the grounds that the school at which the children had been offered places was not the nearest to the home address.
6. Mr and Mrs X asked for a review of the Council’s decision. The senior officer review upheld the decision to refuse school transport, so they used their right to appeal, which is the final stage of the Council’s process.
7. The appeal panel met and considered the cases put forward by both Mr and Mrs X and the Council. The evidence shows that, in addition to the written evidence, Mr X attended the appeal hearing and made verbal representations.
8. The appeal panel did not uphold the appeal. Mr and Mrs X contend that the panel failed to give proper consideration to their concerns about the safety of the route from home to school. They further argue that unreasonable weight has been given to the difference in the distance between the closest school and the school of their choice, which they describe as a technicality. They believe the decision should be reversed and their children granted school transport in the form of free bus passes.
9. 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 Mr and Mrs X’s application or appeal should have succeeded. 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.
10. The Council was entitled to take account of the difference in distance from home to the two schools. This is not a technicality, as Mr and Mrs X state, but a key consideration in the relevant statutory guidance. The fact that the difference in this case is small is not relevant.
11. The case documents show that Mr X had the opportunity to make representations in person and provide supporting evidence for the panel to consider. The weight the panel members gave to the case he made was a matter for their professional judgement. Having considered the evidence, the decision was for them to make. Mr and Mrs X disagree 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

12. We will not investigate Mr and 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