Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about college transport for her sons because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms M complained about her sons’ college transport.

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

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council provides home to college transport for Ms M’s sons. Ms M complains about the distress she suffered when the Council cancelled her sons’ college transport.
6. Ms M was repaying a debt. It appears there was an administrative error by the Council. The Council telephoned Ms M to say it would cancel the boys’ transport as she had not made the agreed payments when in fact she had.
7. The Council says the matter was resolved in 30 minutes and had no impact on the boys’ transport. An officer apologised.
8. Ms M says this is not true. She wants £650 compensation for the distress she suffered.
9. We do not award compensation. We may recommend a small symbolic payment if fault by a Council has caused significant injustice.
10. Ms M sent us an email from the Council timed at 10:51 which apologises “for the distress caused this morning” following the cancellation of the boys’ transport and confirms transport remains in place.
11. It is clear the Council made a mistake. The Council apologised and took action to ensure the boys’ transport remained in place. The injustice from the Council’s mistake is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
12. The Council responded to Ms M’s lengthy complaint about the matter. There is nothing more we could add.
13. Ms M made another complaint to the Council later in the summer. The Council had decided to review both boys’ eligibility for transport. Ms M was unhappy the Council decided her eldest son was taking a new course as this could have had implications for his transport. As it happens, both boys remained eligible for transport. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify further investigation by us. In any event, there is nothing to be gained from further investigation.
14. Ms M has contacted me directly on two occasions when transport has not arrived on time. We cannot consider a complaint until the Council has had an opportunity to investigate and respond. Ms M might consider raising her concerns directly with the Council. If she remains dissatisfied, she can complain to us again.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about college transport for her sons because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman