Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about The Council’s decision to refuse his application for free school transport for his son. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains that the Council refused his application for free transport for his son. He says the Council breached the Equality Act by not making reasonable adjustments for him.
2. Mr Y says the situation has caused him a great deal of stress and difficulty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))

4. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y applied for free home to school transport for his son. The Council refused the application because Mr Y’s son is not attending the nearest suitable school. This means he does not meet the criteria for free home to school transport set out in its policy.
8. The Council’s home to school transport policy states that pupils aged 8 and over will be eligible for free transport if that school is the nearest suitable school and is three miles or more from home. It says parents have the right to express a preference for a school other than the nearest suitable school. This is known as parental preference. However, the transport policy does not make any additional free travel provision for pupils to attend preferred schools.
9. Mr Y appealed the Council’s decision. The appeal panel considered the information Mr Y provided and found the application had been decided in line with the Council’s policy. It maintained the decision to refuse the application.
10. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take second look at a decision to decide if it was right or wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. I am satisfied the Council properly considered Mr Y’s application and appeal for free school transport.
11. Mr Y exercised parental preference in choosing a school for his son that was not the closest suitable school. If Mr Y had chosen the closest suitable school, the Council would have allocated his son this school place. It would have then provided free home to school transport for his son.
12. Mr Y complained that the Council discriminated against him under the Equality Act. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
13. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected. In this case I am satisfied the Council properly considered the concerns Mr Y raised about the impact his health has on transporting his son to school.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because we are unlikely to find sufficient fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman