Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school transport. There is not enough evidence of fault causing significant injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council unfairly decided to stop providing his child, Y, home to school transport from his home. Mr X says the Council misapplied its policy and its decision has caused instability for both him and Y. Mr X 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))

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. Mr X has equal shared custody of Y who is eligible for home to school transport. Statutory guidance on home to school transport states there is no expectation councils will provide transport from two addresses if a child’s parents do not live together.
6. In such circumstances, as an exception, the Council’s policy allows for it to provide transport to two addresses. The policy allows this if the arrangement is cost-neutral for the Council. Such an arrangement was in place for the previous academic year, and Y’s school transport alternated between Y’s parents’ homes.
7. The Council’s policy reserves the Council’s right to change arrangements. Following a retendering process, the arrangement was no longer cost-neutral for the Council, so the Council decided to end transport from Mr X’s home. Mr X appealed the decision, but the appeals panel upheld it.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
9. In this case the appeals panel considered Mr X’s appeal and supporting information. The panel validly reached its decision and explained it to Mr X. The panel considered whether to exercise its discretion and decided against it. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s appeal to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council came to its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman