Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to decline Miss X’s application for post 16 education transport for her child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered the matter to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for post 16 education transport for her child to attend college. Miss X says this caused stress and uncertainty about her child’s future and ability to access further education. Miss X wants the Council to reconsider her application.

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), 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. Miss X applied for post 16 education transport for her child to attend a college which was not a named provision within the designated transport area (DTA) named by the Council.
7. Miss X says her preferred college better suited her child’s learning style and would offer a greater chance of success. She says the Council should treat the family’s circumstances as exceptional, including their rural location, the fact that no one in the family drives, and the unaffordable cost of regular taxi travel.
8. The Council declined Miss X’s application and appeal for post 16 education transport. In its response it explained it refused the application because the preferred college was not within the designated transport area, with the same course offered at one of the closer named colleges. It said the information provided by Miss X was not considered sufficient to establish eligibility under exceptional circumstances.
9. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. In reaching its decision the Council followed its policy and its appeals procedure, considered the information Miss X provided and clearly explained the reasons for its decision.
10. 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 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 the complainant disagrees with the decision the Council made.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman