Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse post 16 home to school transport for the complainant’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for post16 home to school transport for his child. Mr X says the Council failed to take into consideration his child had been in care, experienced adverse childhood trauma, did not meet the criteria for independent travel training or that Mr X had offered to pay towards the cost. Mr X says this has affected his child’s learning and mental health and wants the Council to reconsider its decision.

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Councils have no legal duty to provide travel assistance to young people aged over 16, it is discretionary.
7. The Council’s policy states it will only provide travel support in exceptional circumstances. These may include where a young person aged over 16 has an Education Health Care Plan (EHCP), a disability or learning difficulties.
8. Mr X’s child has an EHCP. He asked the Council to provide transport for his child which the Council refused. The Council did however offer a bus pass for Mr X’s child and a bus pass for an accompanying adult if Mr X provided evidence of low income.
9. Mr X did not agree with the Council’s decision and appealed through the Council’s two stage appeal process.
10. Mr X was given the opportunity to provide evidence to support his case which the appeal panel considered.
11. After considering Mr X’s case and the evidence, the appeal panel decided not to award travel support. The Council appears to have made its decision in line with its policy.
12. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was right or wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision.
13. 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 suitable for Mr 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 appears no such evidence here.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation by us.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman