Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing free school transport for the complainant’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has refused school transport for her child. Mrs X says the reasons the Council gave at each stage of the appeal were confusing and contradictory. Mrs X also complains the Council wrongly suggested she contact other support services her child cannot receive. Mrs X says her child has special education needs meaning independent travel is challenging and parental work commitments make accompanying her child to school difficult.

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 Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X asked the Council to provide free school transport for her child, which she says she is entitled to. The Council refused the request on the grounds that the child lives within the legal walking distance of three miles.
6. Mrs X used her right to appeal to a Council panel against the Council’s decision. She argued the Council should provide school transport because of her child’s special educational needs and the difficulty she faces with work commitments. The appeal panel considered the Council’s policies and the information and arguments from Mrs X. It decided 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.
7. 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 transport arrangements are appropriate for Mrs X’s child. 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.
8. The panel noted Mrs X’s statement about the Council advising her to apply for independent travel training which it turned out her child was not entitled to. The panel offered to request a community referral that might enable Mrs X’s child to receive travel training. There might have been some confusion, but it is unlikely we could achieve significantly more on this point.
9. Mrs X complains the Council gave confusing and contradictory reasons for refusing school transport at different stages of the process. When Mrs X first applied for school transport, the Council applied the test of whether the application met the legal grounds for compulsory free transport. The Council decided Mrs X lived within the legal walking distance so refused her application. That was the correct test at that stage of the process. When the panel considered Mrs X’s appeal, the panel stated legal walking distance does not in itself determine the appeal rather it is decided after considering all the points put forward by the Council and Mrs X. That was the correct, different test for the appeal stage. There may have been some confusion however I can find no evidence of fault in the tests the Council reports applying at each stage.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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