Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of post-16 transport. This is because an investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome. Data protection issues are best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of their child’s post-16 transport. Mr and Mrs X say the Council told them in December 2024 they were not required to pay toward the cost of transport. The Council then told them in March 2025 payment was required and sent a payment reminder which mentioned a debt collection agency. Mr and Mrs X say the Council’s actions caused avoidable distress, uncertainty, and time and trouble. They are also unhappy with the Council’s response to their request for information under a Subject Access Request. Mr and Mrs X want a formal apology and financial compensation to include the Council waiving the cost of transport.

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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if they have a complaint about data protection, including responses to Subject Access Requests (SARs). However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. In response to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint the Council said it had not been able to confirm what information it gave during a phone call in December 2024. It said invoices for transport were normally sent in November, but a new system had led to a delay. An invoice had not been sent for the 2023/24 year by mistake and the Council agreed to waive this cost. The Council accepted that the timing of a payment reminder and mention of debt collection in March 2025 was unfortunate ad it apologised for this. It partially upheld Mr and Mr X’s complaint but said the information given in March 2025 was correct and payment for Y’s transport was required.
7. While I understand Mr and Mrs X’s concerns, we will not start an investigation into their complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response. The Council has already apologised, and it is entitled to charge for post-16 transport. It has clarified the situation regarding a contribution toward the cost of Y’s transport and waived the 2023/24 charge. An investigation would not lead to any further recommendations or a different outcome and so we will not investigate. Any concerns Mr and Mrs X have about the Council’s response to their SAR are best dealt with the by ICO. It is the expert body set up by Parliament to deal with such matters.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. The ICO is best placed to deal with a complaint about the Council’s handling of an SAR.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman