Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal of Mr X’s application for free home to school transport for his child. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider all the evidence when deciding to refuse his application for free home to school transport for his child.
2. Mr X said this is affecting his child’s education and is challenging for the parents to walk the child to and from school.
3. Mr X wants the Council to reconsider its decision and take account of all the evidence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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))
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X applied for free home to school transport for his child, Z. Z has disabilities and an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Mr X said the Council did not properly consider Z’s disabilities, concerns about safety or its statutory duties under the Education Act 1996.
9. The Council has a duty to provide free home to school transport for eligible children. Z does not meet any of the legal grounds for free home to school transport.
10. The Council considered whether to use its discretion to provide transport. It decided that it was reasonable for Z to walk the 1.6 miles from home to school if accompanied by an adult and so refused Mr X’s application.
11. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision at stages one and two of its appeals process. The stage two appeal panel, which Mr X attended, upheld the Council’s decision, saying it was not satisfied that Z’s disabilities prevented him from walking to school when accompanied.
12. The stage two appeal panel’s decision shows that it considered the Council’s school transport policy, the difficulties Mr X and Z faced, considered the evidence Mr X provided and allowed him to contribute in person. The panel decided the evidence supplied was not sufficient to provide support on special educational needs or medical grounds.
13. I acknowledge that Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman