Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council refusing to provide his child with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council for us to question its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained the Council has refused to provide his child (Y) with free transport to school. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s position there is a closer suitable school to home.

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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

School transport

5. The Department for Education has produced statutory guidance for Councils to help understand their duties regarding school transport. The Guidance states councils have a duty to provide free transport to eligible children who attend their nearest suitable school and:
• live more than the statutory walking distance from that school, or
• who live within statutory walking distance of the school, but who cannot reasonably be expected to walk to that school because of their special educational needs, disability, or mobility problem (even if accompanied by their parent), or
• who live within walking distance of the school but would not be able to walk to that school in reasonable safety, even if they were accompanied by their parent.
6. There are also extended rights to free travel for children from low-income households. This entitlement reduces the statutory walking distances and in certain circumstances provides free transport on the grounds of religion or belief.
7. The Guidance states that for children of secondary school age the nearest secondary school to home will almost always be their nearest suitable school. The Guidance states that it is reasonable for a local authority to expect parents to list their nearest school on their application form if they intend to apply for free travel to school. 
8. The Guidance states councils are required to have regard to any wish of a parent to have their child educated at a school based on their religion or belief when exercising school travel duties. The Guidance is clear though that this does not mean parents have a specific right to have their child educated at such a school or to receive transport.
9. References to ‘belief’ include a lack of religion or belief.
10. Councils also have powers to provide discretionary transport to children who are not eligible children.
11. Councils should have an appeals process for parents to challenge decisions about home to school transport.

Background

12. Mr X asked the Council to provide Y with free transport to their secondary school (School C). The Council refused Mr X’s application. It said School B was closer and Y would have been offered a place if Mr X had applied. This meant Y was not entitled to free transport to School C.
13. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision. A panel of councillors considered Mr X’s appeal at the final stage of the Council’s process. In his written appeal and during the hearing Mr X raised the following points:
• School B is a faith school. Y is an atheist and so School B could not be considered “suitable”.
• School B requires a Supplementary Information Form which states it is essential all families support the religious character of the school. Y and their parents could not commit to this.
• If Y did attend School B they would need to be withdrawn from collective worship and other activities. This would mean they would miss ten percent of their school career and be segregated from their peers.
• The Council had failed to take account of Y’s absence of faith as a protected characteristic and had failed in its Public Sector Equality Duty.
• School B had said withdrawing a student from religious activities would be unprecedented.
14. During the appeal hearing the Council and Mr X had the chance to present their cases. There was a chance for questions. The panel considered all the information presented. It decided the Council had correctly applied the law and its policy – School C was not the closest to home and so there was no entitlement to free transport. The panel considered the grounds of Mr X’s appeal but decided not to make an exception to the Council’s policy. It refused Mr X’s appeal.

Assessment

15. We will not start an investigation into Mr X’s complaint.
16. 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 a complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
17. In this case, the Council’s original decision was based around the fact Y is not attending the nearest suitable school to home based on distance. This meant Y was not eligible for transport. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s original decision.
18. The Council then followed the proper process to consider Mr X’s appeals. At the final stage Mr X had a chance to take part in the appeals process. I see no evidence of fault in the process followed.
19. There is nothing in the Guidance which states councils must provide transport to a particular school based on the wish of a parent to have their child educated at a school based on their religion or belief. The only exception is if the child is from a low-income family and qualifies under the ‘extended rights’ criteria. That does not apply here.
20. The tests for the panel were to decide if the Council had properly considered the original application and whether it should provide transport as a discretionary decision. The evidence I have seen shows the panel considered all the information presented. It decided the Council had properly taken the original decision. The choice of School C was parental preference and there were not sufficient grounds to make an exception to the Council’s policy.
21. While I understand Mr X is disappointed with the final decision, it is one the panel was entitled to take. Based on the evidence I have seen there is not enough evidence of fault in how it was reached for us to become involved. We will not therefore investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

22. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman