Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse free home-to-school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for free home-to-school transport for his child. He says the Council failed to properly consider the evidence provided. Mr X says the decision has caused financial and emotional hardship.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X applied for free home-to-school transport for his child, Y.
7. The Council has a duty to provide free home-to-school transport for legally eligible children. Y does not meet any of the grounds for free transport, so the application was declined.
8. Mr X appealed the decision. A Council appeal panel considered his application and supporting evidence for Y. It also considered whether the Council should use its discretion to provide free home-to-school transport for a pupil automatically eligible.
9. The panel noted Y is attending the school of Mr X’s preference, which is not the nearest suitable school. Mr X argues that the nearest school is not suitable for Y. However, the law defines the nearest suitable school as one that is suitable for the child’s age, ability, aptitude and any special education needs they may have. It does not mean the most suitable school. There was no fault from the panel in following the law.
10. Mr X says the panel did not consider the information about Y’s academic achievements, eligibility for free school meals and how Y’s attendance could be affected should transport not be provided.
11. The appeals panel notes show the panel considered the information provided. The weight it chose to give to it was a matter for the panel members’ professional judgement. The Council can use its discretion to provide transport to a child who meets certain low-income criteria and is attending one of the three nearest, suitable schools. Mr X argues there was a discrepancy over the way the panel considered evidence to support the low-income criteria. Nonetheless, as Y was not attending one of the three nearest, suitable schools, this dispute would not have affected the panel’s decision. The panel concluded there were nearer, suitable schools Y could attend and Y’s academic achievement was not enough to deviate from the policy.
12. Although Mr X disagrees with how the panel made its decision, this is not evidence of fault. We do not act as an appeal body and can only consider if there was fault in the way the Council made the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr 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