Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about home to school transport arrangements. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to consider Mrs Y’s complaint under its corporate complaints procedure rather than the children’s statutory complaints procedure. Additionally, we could not add to the investigation the Council has already carried out, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complained about home to school transport arrangements for her child, Z. Mrs Y said the Council did not follow safeguarding procedure and then refused to consider her complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure.
2. Mrs Y said this caused distress.
3. Mrs Y wants the Council to apologise, review its processes and offer a suitable financial remedy for its errors.

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:

• 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.

(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 Mrs Y.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs Y’s child, Z, has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and qualifies for home to school transport assistance.
8. Mrs Y reported concerns to the Council about the arrangements for the home to school transport for Z. Mrs Y did not feel the Council properly addressed her concerns and so complained to it.
9. The Council decided to consider Mrs Y’s complaint under its corporate complaints procedure rather than the statutory children’s complaints procedure.
10. The Council said the children’s statutory complaints procedure was intended to consider complaints about the actions, decisions or apparent failings of the Council’s children’s social services provision and so was not applicable to her complaint.
11. We will not investigate this part of Mrs Y’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to consider her complaint using its corporate complaints procedure to justify us investigating.
12. The Council considered Mrs Y’s complaint at all three stages of its corporate complaints procedure.
13. In its stage three complaint response, the Council accepted fault in not following its school transport safeguarding procedure. The Council also accepted fault in its handling of Mrs Y’s stage two complaint, identified learning, identified training for staff and apologised. The Council confirmed that alternative home to school transport arrangements were now in place.
14. The Council also considered Mrs Y’s request for it to offer a suitable financial remedy but decided that this was not warranted, beyond reimbursement for any costs Mrs Y incurred transporting Z to school before the new arrangements were in place.
15. We will not investigate this part of Mrs Y’s complaint. Given the Council’s findings, we could not add to the investigation it has already carried out. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to consider her complaint using its corporate complaints procedure. Additionally, we could not add to the investigation the Council has already carried out, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman