Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council refused home to school transport for his child, Y. There is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council refused to provide home to school transport for his child, Y.
2. Mr X said the matter caused him frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background

7. Mr X applied for home to school transport for his child, Y, in 2024. Y is over eight years old. The Council rejected the application. It explained it had implemented a new system which calculated a safe walking route from Y’s home to school of less than three miles. Mr X appealed the decision through both stage one and stage two of the Council’s process. Mr X argued the route was unsafe and that the Council should provide transport.
8. In May 2024 the Council commissioned an independent report by an accredited professional to assess the walking route. The assessor documented one point of the route did not meet the criteria for the number of available gaps. However, they determined that the traffic was moving slowly or queueing, and drivers stopped to allow pedestrians to cross. The report concluded the route was acceptable as a crossing if a child was accompanied by a parent/ adult.
9. The Council considered Mr X’s evidence, but decided Y did not meet the relevant criteria for transport. In its final response, the Council explained its reasons. It also explained it would not provide discretionary transport for Y.

Analysis

Late complaint

10. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in August 2025. The original appeal process concluded in July 2024. Mr X therefore made his complaint to the Ombudsman more than 12 months after he was aware of the matter, and the complaint is late.
11. In his correspondence with the Ombudsman Mr X explained the reason he brought the complaint late was because he was engaging with his local councillor and the Council at large. Mr X believed progress was being made, until he later found no further action was being taken.
12. I decided to exercise discretion to consider this complaint because Mr X had a reasonable expectation his local councillor was resolving the matter, which led to a delay in approaching the Ombudsman.

Home to school transport

13. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council applied the correct tests to the application and to the appeals process. It considered its discretion whether to provide transport in any case but decided not to.
14. Y is not eligible under the standard criteria for home to school transport as they are over eight years of age and live less than three miles from their nearest school (which they attend).
15. The statutory guidance states a child would be eligible for free travel to school if they live within the relevant walking distance, but the nature of the route meant that they could not be expected to walk there in reasonable safety even if accompanied by their parent.
16. The Council commissioned an independent report which concluded the route was safe if a child was accompanied by a parent or other adult.
17. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
18. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council considered the application. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman