Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about amendments made to the Council’s school transport policy in 2015. This part of his complaint is late. We will also not investigate the Council’s handling of his recent school transport appeal. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about amendments made to the Council’s school transport policy in 2015 and its handling of his recent transport appeal for his son, Z. He says his appeal was not fairly considered and he had to take time off work to pursue the process. He wants the Council to arrange a new hearing and provide Z’s travel support, review its appeal process, and pay compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support. The statutory guidance recommends a two-stage process, including an independent panel to consider stage two appeals.
7. A detailed decision should be sent setting out: the nature of the decision reached; how the review was conducted; what factors were considered; the rationale for the decision reached; and information about complaining to us.
   (Department of Education, Travel to school for children of compulsory school age statutory guidance 2023, Part 5)
8. The Council changed its school transport policy in 2015. Mr X says this disadvantaged his son. He approached us in October 2025.
9. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint because it is late. The Council changed the policy ten years before Mr X approached us. We cannot consider matters arising before October 2024 unless there are good reasons and I do not consider there are here.
10. Mr X complained the Council did not fairly consider his recent school transport appeal. He said the panel prevented him from raising his points and asking the council officer questions during the hearing. He raised concerns one panel member was biased and another made their decision before deliberation. He also said the panel did not ask the council officer enough questions about his inconsistent submissions.
11. I have reviewed the records from the appeal hearing. It seems Mr X had an opportunity to put forward his case, and the panel asked questions to determine if there were individual circumstances which justified departing from its policy. This included about how Z would get to school if it did not provide transport. In its deliberations, the panel considered factors including Mr X’s financial circumstances and how his older child, who had now finished school, had travelled there. It did not uphold his appeal.
12. In its decision letter to Mr X, the Council said it had considered Mr X’s additional information, but it did not consider there was good enough reason to depart from its policy and offer discretionary transport provision. It signposted him to us if he wanted to complain about the appeal process.
13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his appeal. The records show the Council considered relevant matters before reaching its decision. It was for the Council to decide whether to depart from its policy and it has explained its reasons to Mr X for not doing so. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about amendments made to the Council’s school transport policy in 2015 because it is late. We will not investigate its handling of his school transport appeal because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman