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

The complaint

1. Ms 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 financial strain.

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 Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X applied for free home-to-school transport for her child, Y. She says Y was bullied at his nearest suitable school, which affected his wellbeing, so she withdrew him and later enrolled him at another school.
7. To be automatically eligible for free home-to-school transport, a child aged 8 to 16 must be attending the nearest available and suitable school. They must also live more than three miles from the school by a safe walking route.
8. The Council considered Ms X’s application and supporting evidence. It refused her application because Y is attending a school Ms X chooses, which is not the nearest suitable school.
9. Ms 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 one of the nearest suitable schools to her home address. The panel noted that there was no evidence of health issues. It considered what Ms X had said about paying for transport causing her financial difficulties and noted Ms X had not provided all the financial information the Council had asked for. The panel recognised it could agree transport in extenuating circumstances but did not judge the circumstances here warranted that.
10. 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.
11. The evidence shows 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. Ms X argues the Council simply imposed a blanket policy. The evidence suggests that did not happen. Although Mrs X disagrees with the decision, this is not enough evidence of fault in the way it was made.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman