Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of home to school transport for her child. It is unlikely an investigation would add anything to the Council’s response about it mistakenly allocating her daughter a train pass. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of Miss X’s transport appeals to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, complained about the Council’s handling of home to school transport for her child (Y). Miss X says the Council told her Y would be issued with a bus and rail pass, but later said the reference to a rail pass was a mistake. Miss X is unhappy the Council will not honour the offer of a rail pass and says it is necessary for Y to take part in extra-curricular activities. The Council has refused Miss X’s appeal against its decision. Miss X says communication from the Council has been poor. Miss X is unhappy the bus pass allocated to Y is only for a year.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (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

What I found

School transport

5. The Department for Education has produced statutory guidance for Councils to help understand their duties regarding school transport. The Guidance states councils have a duty to provide free transport to eligible children who attend their nearest suitable school and:
• live more than the statutory walking distance from that school, or
• who live within statutory walking distance of the school, but who cannot reasonably be expected to walk to that school because of their special educational needs, disability, or mobility problem (even if accompanied by their parent), or
• who live within walking distance of the school but would not be able to walk to that school in reasonable safety, even if they were accompanied by their parent.
6. There are also extended rights to free travel for children from low-income households. This entitlement includes free transport for secondary school aged children to one of the three nearest schools to home if between two and six miles.
7. The Guidance states that for children of secondary school age the nearest secondary school to home will almost always be their nearest suitable school. The Guidance states that it is reasonable for a local authority to expect parents to list their nearest school on their application form if they intend to apply for free travel to school. 
8. Arrangements for eligible children must enable them to travel to school for the beginning and end of the school day. Councils are not required to make arrangements to enable children to attend extra-curricular activities and other commitments outside of school hours.
9. Councils also have powers to provide discretionary transport to children who are not eligible children.
10. Councils should have an appeals process for parents to challenge decisions about home to school transport.

Background

11. Miss X has previously asked the Council to provide Y with free transport to their secondary school. The Council refused on the basis it was not the nearest suitable school to home and there was no entitlement on low-income grounds.
12. Miss X appealed the Council’s decision. The Council confirmed that Y is not an eligible child but granted transport for a year using its discretionary powers.
13. The Council then wrote to Miss X to say it had allocated Y a train pass. It then wrote to Miss X to say it had allocated Y a bus pass. This correspondence also contained a mistake as it listed the wrong operator. A further letter was sent correcting this mistake. These events occurred between 18 and 20 August.
14. Miss X has complained to the Council about its failure to honour the rail ticket and its poor communication. Miss X is unhappy the Council has claimed she did not raise the issue of the rail ticket for two months – Miss X disputes this. Miss X says the Council’s withdrawal of the rail pass is unlawful. Miss X is also unhappy the Council only granted Y transport for one year following her successful appeal.
15. The Council has responded to Miss X’s complaint. It set out a chronology of what happened and accepted errors at the start of the process. It also said that no commitment was ever made to provide a train pass during the appeal process and that a pass was never actually issued. As soon as the error was discovered it was corrected.
16. Miss X has subsequently appealed the Council’s decision not to issue Y with a rail pass. The Council refused Miss X’s appeal. It referred to its duty to provide transport at the beginning and end of the day and that the bus pass satisfied this duty.

Assessment

17. While I understand Miss X’s frustrations, we will not start an investigation into her complaint. The reasons for this are below.
18. Firstly, the Council has issued a proportionate and reasonable response to Miss X’s complaint. It has explained what happened. The evidence I have seen supports the Council’s position that there was never an intention to issue a train pass as well as a bus pass. The letter sent to Miss X at the start of the process was an error the Council quickly corrected. This is what we would expect the Council to do. If we investigated, we would not say the Council has acted with fault by failing to issue a train pass as well as a bus pass. Councils will not normally issue two methods for a student to travel to school. It is unlikely that we could add anything to the Council's response and so we will not investigate.
19. Miss X is also unhappy with the Council’s decisions following her appeals. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
20. Following Miss X’s first appeal the Council granted transport to Y for a year. That is a decision for the Council, and I have not seen any evidence of fault in how this discretionary decision was reached. Miss X can ask the Council about making a further application or appeal at the end of the year.
21. Miss X subsequently appealed the Council’s decision not to issue a rail pass and is unhappy the Council refused her appeal. Again, that is a decision for the Council. Once it decided to use its discretionary powers to grant transport it is for the Council to decide what transport to provide. Miss X wants a rail pass as well as a bus pass to help Y attend extra-curricular activities. The Council considered this point as well as the others raised by Miss X and decided not to uphold her appeal. That is a decision the Council is entitled to take and in the absence of fault in how it was reached is not one we can question. We will not therefore investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

22. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response and there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman