Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the school transport provided to her son. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complained about the school transport provided to her son. Miss X is unhappy with the service provided when the usual transport was unavailable. Miss X is unhappy with the Council’s handling of her complaint and wants an apology and service improvements.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, 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. Miss X complained to the Council about what happened when her son’s usual school taxi transport was unavailable. Miss X said the replacement driver did not know the route meaning a much longer journey home. Miss X did not know where her son was and could not contact the operator. Miss X also said the taxi showed signs of damage and there was nearly a collision outside her house.
6. In its response to Miss X the Council said the replacement driver’s satellite navigation had lost its signal leading to the delay. It said the taxi service had an excellent record and the driver now allocated to the route lived close by. It apologised for what had happened.
7. Miss X wants an independent investigation into what happened, an acceptance of negligence, ID badges for drivers, and details of how the situation will be avoided in the future. Miss X is unhappy with the response to her complaint and says she has not received an explanation why an alternative service was used and why the operator did not answer her call when she tried to find out what was happening. Miss X says the Council’s response named the wrong school.
8. While I understand Miss X’s frustrations, we will not start an investigation into her complaint.
9. The Council has responded to Miss X’s concerns and explained what happened. Its response is proportionate to what happened. We only have limited resources and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, or alleged injustice to Miss X, to warrant us investigating. Even if we looked at the complaint further, it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a significantly different outcome.
10. Miss X is unhappy with the Council’s handling of her complaint, but we will not look at complaint handling in isolation. It would also not be a good use of our resources to investigate so we could answer some of the questions raised by Miss X. Any unresolved issues are best discussed with the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman