Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide home to school transport for his child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council rejected his application and subsequent appeals for home to school transport for his child, Y. Mr X says this has had a significant impact on the wellbeing of his family as well as causing financial strain as he has to take time off work to take his child to school. Mr X wants the application reconsidered.

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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Local authorities must make suitable home to school travel arrangements as they consider necessary for ‘eligible children’ of compulsory school age to attend their ‘qualifying school’. The travel arrangements must be made and provided free of charge. The relevant qualifying school is the nearest school with places available that provides education appropriate to the age, ability and aptitude of the child, and any special educational needs the child may have. ‘Eligible children’ include children living outside ‘statutory walking distance’ from the school (two miles for children under eight, three miles for children aged eight and above).
7. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to provide free home to school transport his child. He says the Council failed to take into account the exceptional circumstances his family encounter, namely the care of his disabled son who uses a wheelchair. Mr X says his wife does not drive and would need to take their son with her while walking Y to school. Mr X says the family cannot walk Y to school as the route is unsafe, inaccessible and inappropriate for wheelchair users.
8. The Council declined Mr X’s application for transport because Y does not attend the nearest suitable school and instead attends a school of parental preference. The Council stated safety of the route does not have to be considered as it is not the route to the nearest suitable school. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision.
9. The Council held an appeal hearing, which Mr X and his wife attended in person. As part of its decision making, the documents show the appeal panel considered family circumstances, that Y is a young carer, current temporary travel arrangements, school choice and equality of treatment. It also considered the relevant policies and legislation as well as all supporting evidence submitted by Mr X. The Panel also held a prior public meeting where the route to Y’s school was deemed safe.
10. The appeal panel decided it could not uphold the appeal. The decision letter to Mr X states Y does not attend the nearest suitable school and the family’s circumstances were not strong enough to allow it to use discretion and make an exception to the policy.
11. The appeal panel found the Council had correctly applied the Home to School Transport Policy.
12. We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council considered the relevant information, and its decision appears in line with its policy. The Ombudsman cannot question or criticise the council’s decision provided it has acted without fault in making this decision. Although I accept M X disagrees with the decision, there is no evidence of fault in how it was reached. An investigation into this matter would therefore be unlikely to result in finding fault on the Council’s part.

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 to warrant an investigation by us.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman