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

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for free home-to-school transport for her child. She says this has caused her stress.

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Councils have a duty to provide free home-to-school transport for legally eligible children. Y did not meet the legal grounds for free home-to-school transport. The Council therefore decided whether to use its discretion to provide free transport.
7. Miss X applied for free-home-to-school transport for her child (Y) to attend a grammar school under the extended rights category for low-income families. Miss X says her child should qualify under the Council’s policy because the straight-line distance from her home to the nearest grammar school is 14 miles.
8. The Council’s home-to-school transport policy includes provision for children from low-income families attending their nearest grammar school, where the school is between two and 15 milesfrom the home address (measured by roads and footways, not straight-line distance). The Council was entitled to set this policy and to apply a 15-mile upper distance limit when considering applications under this category.
9. The Council considered Miss X’s application and supporting evidence. Miss X argued, among other points, her home address was only 14 miles from the nearest grammar school when measured in a straight line. The Council accepted the application met the low-income criteria but decided Y lived more than 15 miles from the nearest grammar school using the Council’s measurement method and did not qualify for free transport under its policy.
10. Miss 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 lived more than 15 miles away from the nearest grammar school.
11. The appeals panel decision shows the panel considered how the Council calculated distance for transport purposes. It explained that the Council does not use straight-line distances. Instead, in line with its transport policy, it calculates distances using the shortest available walking route, which can differ from the distance used for school admissions. On that basis, the Council decided Y lived more than 15 miles from the nearest grammar school. The Council properly considered each point in its policy, the information it had about Y’s case and the possibility of giving transport in extenuating circumstances.
12. I understand that Miss X is disappointed with the panel’s decision, but 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.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs 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