Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has said her child is no longer entitled to free home to school transport. Mrs X says the Council redesignated her child’s route to school as an acceptable walking route. She disagrees and says it is unsafe.
2. She says her child is scared of walking the route and she has medical and family needs that prevent her from accompanying him. She says it will affect her child’s school attendance.
3. She would like the Council to reinstate her child’s free bus place.

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 the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. 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.
9. Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision not to offer her child free transport and was able to present her case and ask questions. The panel properly considered her child’s situation and determined it did not warrant a departure from the Council’s policy. As the Council properly considered the decision, I consider it unlikely that we would find fault.
10. The Council separately addressed Mrs X’s complaint about the redesignation of the route as a safe walking route. It explained it followed recognised guidance when assessing the route. It provided a clear and detailed explanation of why it considered the route acceptable in accordance with that guidance. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the designation was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the safety of the walking route, I consider it unlikely that we would find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman