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

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for free home-to-school transport for his child. He says this has caused him stress and frustration. Mr X also says a council officer took part in both stages of the appeal.

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X applied for free home-to-school transport for his child, Y. He says his circumstances were the same as when the Council agreed transport for his older child the year before, and the Council’s policy had not changed.
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 Mr X’s application and supporting evidence. It refused his application because Y is attending a school Mr X preferred, which is not the nearest suitable school.
9. Mr X appealed the decision at stage one and two of the Council’s appeals process. The Council’s appeal panel upheld the decision, saying Y was not attending the nearest suitable school to the home address that could have offered a place. The panel recognised it could agree transport in extenuating circumstances but did not judge the circumstances here warranted that.
10. The appeals panel notes show the panel considered the information about Mr X’s child and the family’s circumstances. It also took account of the Council’s school transport policy, including recognising its discretion to award school transport in exceptional circumstances. It noted it had agreed to provide transport for Mr X’s older child but considered this did not set a precedent and circumstances had changed. The Council properly considered each point in its policy
11. Although Mr 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.
12. Mr X also says the stage one reviewing officer took notes at the stage 2 meeting, which he says was against the Council’s policy. The Council’s policy requires the stage 2 panel to be independent. The stage one reviewing officer was not part of the panel that made the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr 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