Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application and appeal for free school transport for her child. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision her child does not qualify for free school transport. Mrs X says this has caused her significant financial hardship and would like her application reconsidered.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Arrangements for eligible children

6. Local authorities must make suitable home to school travel arrangements as they consider necessary for ‘eligible children’ of compulsory school age to attend their ‘qualifying school’. The travel arrangements must be made and provided free of charge. The relevant qualifying school is the nearest school with places available that provides education appropriate to the age, ability and aptitude of the child, and any special educational needs the child may have. ‘Eligible children’ include:

• children living outside ‘statutory walking distance’ from the school (two miles for children under eight, three miles for children aged eight and above);
• children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot reasonably be expected to walk to school because of their special educational needs, disability or mobility problem;
• children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot walk to school because the route is unsafe (Education Act 1996, 508B(1) and Schedule 35B).

7. The Council refused school transport for Mrs X’s child because the eligibility criteria set out above were not met. Namely Mrs X wanted the Council to provide transport to the preferred school which is not her child’s nearest suitable school. She argued the Council had decided the nearest school was suitable and available on the basis of an unlawful decision by the school to offer places above its Published Admissions Number (PAN).
8. The appeal panel considered the relevant legislation, the Council’s policies and the information and arguments from Mrs X. It decided the Council had applied these correctly and the Council are under no obligation to provide free transport to a school of a parent’s preference. It supported the Council’s decision that the child was not entitled to 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 transport should be provided. 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. That being the case, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the panel’s decision or intervene to substitute an alternative view.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman