Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse a request for post16 home to school transport for a young person with special educational needs. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for post 16 transport to college for her son, Y, who has an Education, Health, and Care Plan (EHCP). She says the Council has not properly considered Y’s disabilities or the family circumstances. Mrs X says she has had to change her working arrangements and cannot afford to pay for taxis. Mrs X wants the Council to provide free home to school transport for Y.

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 (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Councils have no legal duty to provide travel assistance to young people aged over 16. However, the Council provides travel assistance, at its discretion, to young people up to the age of 25 who have special educational needs.
7. Y has a EHCP and the post 16 setting is named on the plan. Mrs X asked the Council to provide Y with transport.
8. The Council refused to pay for the home to school transport because it was not satisfied that Mrs X could not transport Y to school because of any medical, social or financial reasons.
9. The Council’s website shows the policy about post 16 home to school transport. It states that a parent’s work schedule is not a sufficient reason to not transport the child themselves.
10. Mrs X did not agree with the Council’s decision and appealed through the Council’s two stage appeal process. After considering Mrs X’s case the appeal panel decided not to award travel assistance.
11. It is my assessment the Council made its decision in line with its policy. Mrs X was given the opportunity to provide evidence to support her case. The appeal panel considered Mrs X’s evidence and recognised the family circumstances and Y’s needs.
12. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was right or wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision.
13. The Council decided Y was not eligible for home to school transport. It was entitled to make this decision in line with its policy and there is no evidence the decision-making process was flawed.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman