Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to recover overpaid travel assistance. This is because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to recover overpaid travel assistance. He believes it is unfair for the Council to recover the overpayment when it made the error. He also complains about the way the Council communicated with him about this matter.
2. Mr X says this has caused his family financial and emotional distress. He says they incurred transport costs without receiving the support they should have received and found the Council's communication dismissive and unsupportive.
3. Mr X wants the Council to honour the original travel assistance arrangement, refund any payments he believes he was owed and improve how it communicates with families and makes decisions affecting them.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X.
6. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council's school transport policy says that, for pupils placed at residential schools, it will provide one return journey at the start and end of each week, fortnight or term, as appropriate. The policy also says it may withdraw travel assistance awarded in error.
8. Under the policy, Mr X's child was entitled to two return journeys each week. However, because of a Council error, it awarded funding for four return journeys, resulting in an overpayment.
9. When the Council identified the error, it notified Mr X, apologised and explained why it needed to recover the overpayment. It arranged to recover the money by offsetting future payments and offered a repayment plan for any remaining balance. It also offered alternative transport arrangements, which Mr X declined.
10. I acknowledge the Council incorrectly overpaid Mr X. However, I do not consider the Council’s error prevents it from recovering the overpayment because:
• The Council’s policy allows it to withdraw travel assistance awarded in error;
• Mr X was not entitled to the additional payments; and
• The Council has a duty to protect public funds.
11. As Mr X was not entitled to the additional payments, and the Council has taken steps to reduce the financial impact of the recovery, I do not consider he has suffered a significant enough injustice to justify us investigating.
12. The revised travel assistance arrangement reflects Mr X's entitlement under the Council's policy. We could not require the Council to provide assistance beyond that entitlement, so an investigation by us could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Communication

13. The Council apologised for the way it communicated with Mr X. It also said it would remind staff of its expectations for communicating with families and review its guidance to provide clearer support when discussing repayment following a Council error.
14. I am satisfied these actions are a proportionate to the injustice caused. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to justify us investigating and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome in relation to his concerns about the Council’s communication.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman