Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a school transport appeal because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Ms M complains the Council refused her application for home to school transport for her son. She complains her appeal was procedurally unfair, discriminatory and unlawful.

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
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 Ms M and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms M applied for home to school transport for her son. Her application and subsequent appeals were unsuccessful. The Council decided not to provide transport because Ms M’s son does not attend the nearest suitable school and there are no exceptional circumstances to justify the Council providing transport.
6. Unhappy with the outcome, Ms M complained to us.
7. Ms M complains:
• the Council was wrong to say the nearest school was suitable for her son’s special educational needs just because he does not have an education, health and care (EHC) plan;
• the appeal panel failed to take account of trauma Ms M says her older child suffered at the same school;
• the appeal panel failed to take account of Ms M’s disability and the disabilities of her children;
• the appeal panel was wrong to refer to the cost of transport when considering her appeal;
• the appeal panel failed to take account of the difficulties she faces getting three children to three different schools, and the safeguarding risks this poses;
• the Council gave less than one week’s notice of the appeal hearing, a member of the panel was substituted at the last minute, and Ms M does not believe any minutes were taken during the hearing;
• the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments for the hearing which prevented her from participating fully and presenting her case.
8. Ms M wants us to direct the Council to provide transport or pay for an equivalent arrangement.
9. We do not decide whether the Council should provide transport for Ms M’s son. This is the Council’s job. We are not another appeal. Our job is to check the appeal panel made its decision properly. We check the panel followed relevant legislation, government guidance and Council policies, took account of all relevant evidence and the hearing was fair. We cannot question panel decisions taken without fault, no matter how strongly Ms M disagrees.
10. The Council sent me minutes from the appeal hearing. These show that Ms M agreed to the format of the hearing and said she was happy with the arrangements (reasonable adjustments) to present her case.
11. The evidence shows the appeal panel considered all the reasons Ms M wanted the Council to provide transport, including her disability, her son’s special educational needs, the experience of his older sibling at the nearer school, and the logistical difficulties of getting three children to three schools.
12. Government guidance says councils are entitled to assume that the nearest mainstream school will be able to meet the needs of any child without an education, health and care plan. It also says cost is a relevant consideration when assessing requests for discretionary support.
13. There is not enough evidence of fault in Ms M’s appeal to justify an investigation by us. An investigation would not lead to a different outcome, and we cannot achieve the outcome Ms M wants. We cannot direct the Council to provide transport. There is nothing worthwhile we could achieve by investigating the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman