Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school transport because there is not enough evidence of fault causing injustice to justify an investigation. Investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council refused her request for home to school transport for her son. She is unhappy with the Council’s handling of her application and appeal.

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 we 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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. Ms X set out her concerns in detail. I have carefully considered everything she said, although I have not included every detail here. We have limited resources, so I have focussed my attention on what I consider to be the core issue. I have included as few details as possible in my decision statement to protect the anonymity of Ms X and her son.

What happened

6. The Council refused Ms X’s request for home to school transport because her son had not reached compulsory school age.
7. In her appeal, Ms X explained why she considered it important for her son to attend school even though he was not of compulsory school age, and why it was important he attended the school she has chosen. She submitted a detailed written case.
8. Ms X was unable to participate in the hearing due to technical problems. The appeal proceeded without her and was decided on the basis of the written information she provided.
9. The appeal panel decided that support was available closer to home and did not uphold Ms X’s appeal. Unhappy with the outcome, Ms X complained to us.

Consideration

10. We are not another appeal. We do not decide whether the Council should provide transport for Ms X’s son. This is the Council’s job. Our role is to check the Council made its decision properly. We cannot question decisions taken without fault, no matter how strongly Ms X disagrees.
11. The Council’s duties and powers are set out in legislation and Government guidance.
12. The Council does not have a duty to provide transport for children who are not of compulsory school age, but it may do so if it considers it appropriate. When considering transport, children must have access to ‘suitable education’, but the guidance says it is not necessary for this to be ‘the most suitable education’ available.
13. The Council was not obliged to provide transport because Ms X’s son had not reached compulsory school age. It decided not to offer transport assistance because support for pre-school children was available closer to home. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
14. There were technical problems which prevented Ms X participating in the appeal hearing. The Council could have adjourned the hearing. However, I have not seen evidence Ms X asked for an adjournment, or that she had information she was unable to present to the panel as a result. Her written submission was detailed and clear. For these reasons, we would be unlikely to conclude the problems with the appeal caused Ms X significant injustice.
15. We will not pursue Ms X’s complaint because investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault causing injustice to justify an investigation. Investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman