Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council agreed to make a new decision and offer Mr F a fresh appeal against its decision not to provide home to school transport for his daughter.

The complaint

1. Mr F complains the Council refused his application for free home to school transport for his daughter, G. He wants the Council to provide transport in a ‘supported taxi’ due to G’s special educational needs. He is currently providing transport himself.

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:

• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants,
• it would be reasonable for the person to accept a council review or appeal; and
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by further 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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr F applied for school transport for his daughter, G. G attends the secondary school named in her education, health and care (EHC) plan. The Council refused Mr F’s application because there is a nearer school to Mr F’s home which the Council said was suitable.
6. We do not decide whether the Council should provide transport for G. This is the Council’s job. Our role is to check the Council followed relevant legislation, Government guidance and Council policies, and took account of all relevant information.
7. The Council sent me the papers from Mr F’s application and appeal.
8. If we investigated the complaint, it is likely we would find fault because G attends the school named in her EHC plan. There are no other schools named in the plan, and no conditions attached. This means G does attend her nearest suitable school.
9. But we cannot say whether the Council should provide transport. This is a decision only the Council can make. The Council should have considered whether G is able to walk to the school named in her EHC plan because of her special educational needs. If we investigated the complaint, it is likely we would find fault because there is not enough evidence the Council considered this, at least not until late in the day. As a result, Mr F did not have an opportunity to appeal the Council’s decision about G’s ability to walk to the school named in her EHC plan.
10. We therefore asked the Council to consider making a new transport decision and offering Mr F a fresh appeal. To its credit, the Council agreed.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We have upheld this complaint because the Council agreed to make a new transport decision and offer Mr F a fresh appeal. This is a satisfactory outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman