Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse school transport for the complainant’s child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council refused school transport for her child. She says the decision ignored evidence about why the route is not safe. Mrs X believes the decision discriminated on the basis of gender. Mrs X says having to transport her child to school has impacted on her work commitments and therefore resulted in financial 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council withdrew free school transport for Mrs X’s child after finding a safe route that was within the legal walking distance of three miles. Mrs X used her right to appeal the Council’s decision at Stages 1 and 2 of the Council’s appeal process.
6. There is no indication of any fault in the way the Council reached its initial decision or considered the Stage 1 appeal.
7. At the Stage 2 appeal, Mrs X argued the Council should continue to provide school transport because the route identified by the Council is not safe. The review panel considered the Council’s policies and the information and arguments from Mrs X. It supported the Council’s decision that Mrs X’s child is not eligible for free school transport as the route is safe for them to walk, accompanied if necessary. It explained how it had assessed the safety of the route for all children, regardless of gender. The legal test is not whether a route is safe for a child to walk alone, but whether it is safe to walk accompanied by an adult if necessary. Mrs X disagrees with that test for several reasons, including her argument that the burden of accompanying children to and from school will fall disproportionately on mothers. Nevertheless, there was no fault in the Council’s panel having regard to the law.
8. The review panel decided there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant departing from the Council’s existing policy and the eligibility criteria for free transport.
9. 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 route is safe for Mrs X’s child if accompanied. That was for the Council to decide. The question for us is whether there is evidence of fault in the way the appeal panel considered the matter and, if so, whether that affected the outcome. There is no such evidence here.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman