Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse free school transport for his child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse free school transport for his child. He says the Council incorrectly assessed which school was the nearest suitable one and has not considered the safety of the walking route.
2. Mr X says the matter has impacted his family financially. He wants the Council to reassess his child’s application and provide them with free school transport.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and the Council’s school transport policy.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X made an application for free school transport his child. The Council decided Mr X’s child was not entitled to free school transport because they were not attending their nearest suitable school. Mr X disputed the decision and appealed, but the Council dismissed his appeal. Mr X complains the Council has incorrectly assessed the nearest suitable school. He also complains the Council did not consider the safety of the walking route.
7. The Council uses a routing software to determine a child’s nearest suitable school based on transport network data. The software calculates the shortest route along the transport network between the home and the school.
8. The Council’s routing software shows the school Mr X’s child attends is not the nearest suitable school for school transport purposes, as another school is closer. I am satisfied the Council correctly assessed the nearest suitable school in line with its school transport policy and using relevant information to determine the length of the route. I am also satisfied the Council considered the evidence Mr X provided and made a decision it was entitled to. There is not enough evidence of fault on this point to justify us investigating.
9. The Council must consider the safety of the walking route where it refuses free school transport because the nearest suitable school is within statutory walking distance. In Mr X’s case, the Council refused transport because his child is not attending the nearest suitable school. This means the safety of the walking route is not relevant, and the Council was not required to consider it.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman