Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about school and college transport for her children because there is not enough evidence of faut, and we cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

The complaint

1. Ms M complains about school and college transport arrangements for her six children. She has a minibus and says the Council has been paying her to provide transport with an escort for the last eight years. She wants these arrangements to continue. The Council has offered independent travel training for Ms M’s oldest children, a personal travel budget for the children with the highest needs, and arranged transport for one of Ms M’s youngest children.

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
• 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Ombudsman does not decide whether the Council should provide transport for Ms M’s children, or what form any transport assistance should take. This is the Council’s job. Our role is to check the Council made its decisions properly. We check the Council followed the relevant legislation, Government guidance and Council policies, and considered all relevant information. We cannot question Council decisions taken without fault, no matter how strongly Ms M disagrees.
6. Ms M’s four oldest children are adults. The youngest are secondary school pupils. Different rules apply to children of school age and young adults.
7. I have not included personal details here to ensure Ms M’s anonymity.
8. The Council sent me the papers from Ms M’s transport applications and appeals for all her children. I will consider each in turn and the reasons Ms M is unhappy with the Council’s decisions.
9. The Council offered independent travel training for Ms M’s oldest children so they could get to college using public transport. The Council said it would continue to provide transport assistance until they successfully completed their travel training.
10. Ms M says it is not practical for her oldest children to travel by bus. One falls asleep and misses his stop, the other dislikes being on public transport and prefers to get off and walk. She has decided she will continue to drive them to college.
11. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to offer independent travel training for Ms M’s oldest children to justify an investigation by us.
12. The Council offered a personal travel budget of £2,106 per year for each of Ms M’s middle children, a total of £4,212. They both attend the same college which is approximately two miles from Ms M’s home.
13. Ms M is unhappy with the Council’s offer. She does not consider the Council’s contribution to the children’s travel expenses is sufficient. She says she needs an escort in the vehicle with her because one of the children displays challenging behaviour.
14. I can see from the papers that this was discussed in Ms M’s appeal. The panel noted that the children receive personal independence payments, and direct payments from the Council to pay for a personal assistant. Ms M explained that family finances were stretched due to the high rent. The appeal panel was satisfied the Council’s contribution was sufficient.
15. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to offer personal travel budgets totalling £4,212 for Ms M’s middle children.
16. The youngest children are at secondary school. One attends a mainstream school, the other a special school.
17. The Council declined to provide transport to the mainstream school. It said the school was less than the maximum walking distance from Ms M’s home and it was reasonable for Ms M’s child to walk to school or use public transport.
18. Ms M objected because her child has asthma which she says is poorly controlled. She says traffic fumes aggravate the child’s asthma.
19. I can see from the papers that this was discussed in Ms M’s appeal. The panel was satisfied the child used inhalers, and could use public transport as an alternative to walking.
20. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to provide transport to justify an investigation.
21. The Council offered a place on arranged transport to the special school.
22. Ms M is unhappy with the Council’s offer because she says the pick-up and drop-off times are impractical bearing in mind the arrangements she has to make for the other children.
23. I can see from the papers that this, too, was considered by the Council. The Council said the times would allow Ms M to drive the middle children to college. The other children would travel independently.
24. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to offer arranged transport to the special school to justify an investigation.
25. Ms M is unhappy with the outcome because she wants the arrangements that have worked successfully for more than eight years to continue. It is clear from the papers that the appeal panel understood her wish.
26. However, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council or the appeal panel’s decisions to justify an investigation. We cannot achieve the outcome Ms M wants.

Back to top

Final decision

27. We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. We cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman