Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council refusing to provide her child with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complained the Council has refused to provide her son (Y) with free transport to school. Mrs X questions how the Council reached its decision and the accuracy of its information. Mrs X says her elder child receives free transport as do other children living in the same village.

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))

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

What I found

School transport

5. The Department for Education has produced statutory guidance for Councils to help understand their duties regarding school transport. The Guidance states councils have a duty to provide free transport to eligible children who attend their nearest suitable school and:
• live more than the statutory walking distance from that school, or
• who live within statutory walking distance of the school, but who cannot reasonably be expected to walk to that school because of their special educational needs, disability, or mobility problem (even if accompanied by their parent), or
• who live within walking distance of the school but would not be able to walk to that school in reasonable safety, even if they were accompanied by their parent.
6. The guidance states that for children of secondary school age the nearest secondary school to home will almost always be their nearest suitable school. The guidance states that it is reasonable for a local authority to expect parents to list their nearest school on their application form if they intend to apply for free travel to school. 
7. Councils also have powers to provide discretionary transport to children who are not eligible children.
8. Councils should have an appeals process for parents to challenge decisions about home to school transport.

Background

9. Mrs X asked the Council to provide Y with free transport to his secondary school (School F). The Council refused Mrs X’s application. It said School F was not the nearest suitable school to Mrs X’s home. It said School F was 3.21 miles away. School C was the closest at c1.9 miles away. This meant there was no entitlement to free transport to School F.
10. Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision. Mrs X explained why she wanted Y to attend School F. Mrs X explained Y’s elder sibling attends School F and receives free transport. Y’s other sibling attends a different secondary school (School D). It was not possible to have children at three different schools.
11. The Council refused Mrs X’s stage 1 appeal. It confirmed the school Y attended (School F) was not the nearest school to home; it was 3.21 miles away. School C was the closest (c1.9 miles). School E (3.18 miles) and School D (2.53 miles) were also closer. The Council explained there had been issues in previous years around school capacity which had led to anomalies around the nearest suitable school and transport eligibility.
12. Mrs X asked to escalate her case and an independent panel considered her appeal at the final stage of the Council’s appeals process. During the appeal the Council confirmed places would have been offered at School E or School C if Mrs X had applied. Mrs X questioned whether a place would have been offered at School C. The panel agreed with the Council’s decision that Y was not attending the nearest suitable school and there was no legal entitlement to school transport. The panel considered the information presented but decided not to use its discretionary powers to provide transport.

Assessment

13. We will not start an investigation into Mrs X’s complaint.
14. 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, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
15. In this case, the Council’s original decision was based around the fact Y is not attending the nearest suitable school to home. It referred to School C which is clearly closer than the school Y attends.
16. The Council then followed its published process to consider Mrs X’s appeals. Mrs X had a chance to take part in the appeals process. I note that at Stage 2 Mrs X questioned the availability of places at School C. Even if places are not now available, that does not mean Y would not have been offered a place in the normal admissions round. There are also other schools which the Council says are closer than the one Y attends. These include School E, and I understand that all children who applied there were offered places. The Council also says places are still available. Y is not therefore attending the nearest suitable school to home. We cannot therefore say the panel was at fault for reaching this decision. The panel considered all the information available and decided not to use its discretionary powers. That is a decision the panel was entitled to take, and there is not enough evidence of fault in how it was reached for us to become involved.
17. In her complaint to the Ombudsman Mrs X referred to her elder child receiving free transport, along with other children in the village. As the Council explained, the availability of places can lead to anomalies in transport eligibility. Our role here is to look at how the Council dealt with Mrs X’s case. So, while I understand Mrs X is disappointed with the Council’s decision, there is not enough evidence of fault for us to become involved.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman