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. Ms X complains the Council refused school transport for her child. Ms X says the Council did not take account of her child’s special education needs meaning independent travel is challenging or the family’s current circumstances. Ms X says this has caused ongoing stress and financial strain on her family.

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 Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X asked the Council to provide free school transport for her child, which she believes her child is entitled to. The Council refused the request on the grounds that the child lives within the legal walking distance of three miles and is able to walk to school accompanied if necessary.
7. Ms 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 challenges her family have in getting her child to school. The appeal panel considered the Council’s policies, the assessment carried out by Independent Travel Training, the information and arguments from Ms X as well as her child’s Education and Health Care Plan (EHCP). 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. It was noted the child’s father had obtained flexible working arrangements to allow him to accompany his child to and from school. In order to assist Ms X and her family, the Council has offered alternatives to Ms X including a free bus pass for her child as well as travel training.
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 transport arrangements are appropriate for Ms 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.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision to justify our involvement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman