Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about school transport for her children because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms M complains the Council refused her applications for home to school transport for her children.

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, and
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26B as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms M’s older child joined the school in September 2023. Ms M applied for home to school transport. Her application and subsequent appeal were unsuccessful.
7. Ms M’s younger child joined the school in September 2025. Again, Ms M applied for home to school transport. Her application and subsequent appeal were unsuccessful.
8. Unhappy with the outcome, Ms M complained to us.
9. Ms M said the Council had misinformed her about eligibility for home to school transport before her older child joined the school. She sent an email from the Council dated May 2023 in which the Council explained an officer had made a mistake when speaking to Ms M three days earlier. The email confirmed Ms M’s older child was not eligible for home to school transport.
10. Ms M says the Council’s mistake influenced her choice of school and created the ‘legitimate expectation’ her children would be entitled to transport.
11. We do not decide whether the Council should provide transport for Ms M’s children. This is the Council’s job. Our role is to check the Council followed the relevant legislation, Government guidance and Council policies. We cannot question Council decisions taken without fault, no matter how strongly Ms M disagrees. We are not another appeal.
12. We will not consider Ms M’s complaint about transport for her older child or the mistake Ms M says the Council made in 2023. These matters are too old.
13. Ms M sent me the decision letter from her appeal at the second stage of the Council’s appeals process. The letter explains why the Council will not provide transport for Ms M’s younger child. The letter shows the appeal panel addressed the points Ms M made in her appeal. I have not included the details here to ensure Ms M’s anonymity. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman