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

The complaint

1. Mrs 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 her stress.

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X applied for free home-to-school transport for her child, Y. Y has disabilities and an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). Mrs X says the Council did not properly consider Y’s disabilities, concerns about safety or its duties under section 508B of the Education Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010.
7. Councils have a duty to provide free home-to-school transport for legally eligible children. Y does not meet any of the legal grounds for free transport. So the Council considered whether to use its discretion to provide transport.
8. The Council considered Mrs X’s application and supporting evidence. It decided it was reasonable for Y to travel the 0.41 miles between his home and school if accompanied by an adult, so refused transport.
9. Mrs X appealed the decision at stage one and two of the Council’s appeals process. The Council’s appeal panel upheld the decision, saying it was not satisfied that Y’s disabilities prevented him from walking to school if accompanied.
10. The appeals panel decision shows the panel considered the difficulties faced by Mrs X. The panel also considered information it had about Y’s SEN, and took account of the Council’s school transport policy, including recognising its discretion to award school transport in exceptional circumstances. The panel explained the evidence supplied was not sufficient to award support on SEN or medical grounds. The Council properly considered each point in its policy and although Mrs X disagrees with the decision, this is not evidence of fault in the way it was made. We do not act as an appeal body and can only consider if there was fault in the way the Council made the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman