Summary: We will not investigate Mr F’s complaint about school transport for his daughter because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation, and nothing we could add to the Council’s response to his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr F complains the Council refused his application for free home to school transport for his daughter.

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 could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• it would have been reasonable for the person to ask for a council appeal; 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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr F applied for free home to school transport. His application was unsuccessful. He missed the deadline to appeal the Council’s decision. He submitted a complaint instead.
6. We do not decide whether the Council should provide free home to school transport for Mr F’s daughter. This is the Council’s job. Our role is to check the Council followed all relevant legislation, Government guidance and Council policies. We cannot question Council decisions taken without fault, no matter how strongly Mr F disagrees.
7. The Council refused Mr F’s application because his daughter does not attend the nearest suitable school. There is a school 0.1 miles closer to Mr F’s home.
8. Mr F says the journey time to that school is unpredictable due to congestion. He believes this makes the school “unsuitable”. He thinks the Council is unreasonable basing its decision on a difference of 0.1 miles between the schools, and provided measurements from an online journey planner which shows his chosen school is closer. He says the Council provides transport to his older daughter (to a different school) and to other children on the same street.
9. Mr F has missed his opportunity to appeal the Council’s decision. It would have been reasonable for him to have appealed when the Council sent its original decision.
10. There is not enough evidence of fault in the decision to justify an investigation by us.
11. The evidence suggests the Council applied its published criteria fairly and transparently to identify the nearest school, so the fact the difference between the nearest and the second nearest is only 0.1 miles is not relevant. “Suitability” is defined in the Education Act as suitability for a child’s age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs they may have. Congestion on the school run is not a relevant factor. It is not relevant the Council provides transport to Mr F’s older daughter to a different school, or to other children on the same street. Each case is considered on its merits.
12. There is nothing we could add to the Council’s response to Mr F’s complaint, and further investigation would not change the outcome. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr F’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation, and nothing we could add to the Council’s response to his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman