Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s removal of the complainant’s child’s personal travel allowance and the refusal of her appeal against this decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant our intervention.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains that the Council was at fault in removing her son’s personal travel allowance in favour of an unsuitable alternative, and in refusing her subsequent appeal against its decision.

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. Ms X’s son has an Education Health and Care plan and qualifies for home-to-school transport assistance. This was previously provided by way of a personal travel allowance which allowed Ms X to make appropriate arrangements for solo transport for her son.
6. The Council has reviewed the arrangements and withdrawn the allowance. It has offered alternative provision by way of shared transport. Ms X has declined this offer and contends that it is not suitable for her son. She has used her right to appeal against the decision.
7. When the matter came before the appeal panel, Ms X made written submissions setting out why her son cannot access shared transport and provided supporting medical evidence. The appeal panel did not uphold the appeal. It took the view that the Council had made a reasonable decision and there were no exceptional grounds to warrant departing from it. It offered Ms X a milage allowance as an alternative, if she chose not to accept the offer of shared transport.
8. Mrs X complains that the appeal panel’s decision is flawed, and that the decision not to reinstate the allowance means the Council is failing to deliver its statutory duties towards her son. She says the withdrawal of the allowance was made for financial reasons, without proper regard for the Council’s duties and her son’s needs. She also contends that subsequent inaccurate statements made by the Council call into question the way the original decision to withdraw the allowance was made.
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 the Council’s award is appropriate for Ms X’s son, or whether he requires solo transport. 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 case documents show that Ms 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.
11. Ms 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

12. We will not investigate Ms 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