Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her child school travel assistance. There is not enough evidence of fault and it is reasonable for her to appeal the decision.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her child school travel assistance and a personal transport budget (PTB). She says the Council’s decision failed to exercise discretion or consider her individual and familial circumstances.

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, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(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 Mrs X.
4. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Councils must provide school travel assistance for children who meet the eligibility criteria under the Home to School Travel Statutory Guidance. One of those criteria is that the child attends their nearest suitable school.
6. For school travel purposes, the nearest suitable school is one that is appropriate for the child's age, aptitude and any special educational needs. It does not mean the school that is most suitable or preferred. The nearest school to the child’s home will generally always be the nearest suitable school.
7. Mrs X’s child does not attend her nearest suitable school and therefore she is not eligible for school travel assistance. The fact that her siblings may attend the same school or receive school travel assistance does not make Mrs X’s child eligible. The Council was therefore entitled to refuse school travel assistance in the circumstances and there is not enough evidence of fault on this point to justify us investigating.
8. The Council’s policy says it may award a PTB for children with special educational needs or are eligible for school travel assistance. As Mrs X’s child does not have special educational needs and is not eligible for travel assistance then she is also not entitled to a PTB. The Council was therefore entitled to refuse her PTB and there is not enough evidence of fault on this point to justify us investigating.

Discretion

9. Councils also have discretionary powers to provide school travel assistance for children who are not eligible. It is for each council to decide whether and how to exercise their discretionary powers.
10. The Council's policy says it can consider appeals for children who are not eligible for school travel assistance where there are exceptional circumstances. Appeals must be made in writing and are considered by the Transport Exception Panel.
11. The Council has an appeal process for considering whether to exercise its discretionary powers in exceptional circumstances. It is therefore reasonable for Mrs X to use that appeal process. This is the appropriate route for challenging the Council's decision, rather than using the complaints procedure. As it is reasonable for Mrs X to appeal, we will not investigate this part of her complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault and because it is reasonable for her to appeal the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman