Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse free home-to-school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for free home-to-school transport for his child. He says the Council failed to properly consider medical evidence and evidence relating to his income. Mr X says the decision has caused financial and emotional hardship.

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)
3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X applied for free home-to-school transport for his child, Z.
7. The Council has a duty to provide free home-to-school transport for legally eligible children. Z does not meet any of the grounds for free transport, so the application was declined.
8. Mr X appealed the decision where the panel considered his application and supporting evidence for Z. It refused his application because Z is attending the school of Mr X’s preferred choice, which is not the nearest suitable school.
9. Mr X says his complaint is not that he disagrees with the decision made by the panel, rather he feels the panel did not consider two pieces of information relating to Y’s medical conditions and eligibility for free school meals. He argues that it failed to give proper weight to the medical evidence he provided, and that it was wrongly advised that Z was not eligible for free school meals.
10. The appeals panel notes show the panel considered the medical information. The weight it chose to give to it was a matter for the panel member’s professional judgment. It was entitled to rely on the information before it regarding Z’s eligibility for free school meals. The panel also considered the Council’s policy stating transport will not be provided to an independent school unless named in an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. Z does not have an EHC plan, therefore the eligibility for free school meals could not have led the panel to uphold the appeal.
11. Although Mr X disagrees with how the panel made their decision, this is not evidence of fault. We do not act as an appeal body and can only consider if there was fault in the way the Council made the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman