Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her child school travel assistance. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her child school travel assistance.

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))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council decided to refuse school travel assistance for Miss X’s child because he does not attend his nearest suitable school. Miss X complains the Council’s decision did not properly consider her circumstances, including her child’s special educational needs, and the fact that her older child, who also has special educational needs, attends the same school and receives school travel assistance.
7. Councils must provide school travel assistance for children who meet the eligibility criteria under the Home-to-School Travel Statutory Guidance (the Statutory Guidance). One of those criteria is that the child attends their nearest suitable school.
8. 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.
9. Councils also have a discretionary power to award school travel assistance for children that are not eligible. It is for each council to decide whether and how to exercise their discretionary power.
10. Miss X’s child does not attend his nearest suitable school and therefore he is not automatically eligible for school travel assistance. I recognise Miss X says her child has special educational needs; however, there is not enough evidence to show that a nearer school cannot meet his needs or is otherwise unsuitable. The fact that her older child attends the same school and receives school travel assistance does not make her other child eligible.
11. The evidence I have seen shows the Council considered the Statutory Guidance, Ms X’s representations, her familial circumstances and her child’s special educational needs. It also turned its mind to its discretionary powers. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached this decision. Where there is not enough evidence of fault, we cannot question the outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman