Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of post-16 college transport. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council for us to be able to question its actions and we cannot achieve the desired outcome. It is open to Mr and Mrs X to apply for transport for the current academic year.

The complaint

1. The complainants, whom I shall refer to as Mr and Mrs X, complain about the Council’s choice of operator for their child’s post-16 transport to college. Mr and Mrs X say the Council’s chosen operator is not appropriate because of a previous incident. Mr and Mr X want the Council to use a different operator.

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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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. In response to Mr and Mrs X’s complaints the Council said it has no concerns about the operator, and it has an “excellent” track record. Mr and Mrs X claimed the operator previously had its contracts terminated – the Council said this is not the case. It offered a travel allowance instead of the transport it had arranged.
6. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
7. In this case, the Council has appointed an operator using its normal processes and I have not seen any evidence of fault in how it did this. Mr and Mrs X are clearly concerned about the operator. The Council has considered their concerns and has decided there are no reasons to change the operator. It has offered a travel allowance as an alternative, although Mr and Mrs X do not consider this viable.
8. I have considered the steps the organisation took to consider the issue at the heart of this complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council for us to be able to question its decisions. We have no powers to say which operator the Council should use and so our further involvement is not warranted.
9. Mr and Mrs X’s complaint relates to transport they requested for the 2024/25 academic year. Transport needs to be requested every year and so they can submit a fresh application for the 2025/26 academic year. I do not know what the outcome of that application would be, but if Mr and Mrs X were unhappy with the offer, they could challenge it using the Council’s own processes.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome they want.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman