Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application and appeal for the reinstatement of free school transport for his child. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has refused his application and appeal for the reinstatement of free school transport for his child. Mr X says he now drives his child to school which causes financial strain, stress and disruptions to parental work commitments and family routine.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council has withdrawn free school transport for Mr X’s child. Mr X says the Council incorrectly measured the distance between his home and the school from a new pedestrian pathway through the estate where they live. He says the Council withdrew the transport entitlement because the distance to school from the point the pathway meets the public highway means his child now lives within the legal walking distance of three miles. Mr X says the pathway is not a safe walking route for his child and should not be used in the calculation.
6. Mr X used his right to appeal to a Council panel against the Council’s decision. He argued the Council should provide school transport because the route measurement should start from the front of his property and not the end of the pathway, the pathway is unadopted and not a safe walking route for his child and the distance therefore exceeds the legal walking distance of under three miles.
7. The appeal panel considered the relevant legislation, the Council’s policies and the information and arguments from Mr X. It decided the Council had applied these correctly and there were no exceptional grounds to warrant departing from the Council’s existing policy and the eligibility criteria for free transport. It supported the Council’s decision that the child was not entitled to free transport and could reasonably be expected to walk to and from school, accompanied if necessary.
8. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. It is not for the Ombudsman to take a view on whether the pathway should be included in the distance calculation. That was for the Council to decide. The question for us is whether there is evidence of fault in the way the panel considered the matter and, if so, whether that affected the outcome. There is no such evidence here. That being the case, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the panel’s decision, or intervene to substitute an alternative view.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman