Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his child free home-to-school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council's school transport policy is not in line with the Education Act 1996 because it identified School B as his child's nearest suitable school using distance measurements he disputes. He says the Council uses a mapping system which is not publicly available, meaning he could not verify distances or make an informed choice about school applications. He says travel to School B is unsafe and exceeds recommended travel times. He says the Council previously granted free school transport for his older child who also attended School C. Mr X wants the Council to use a single transparent mapping system for school admissions and transport entitlement. He also wants the Council to look again at his child's eligibility for free school transport.

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. The Council’s policy uses different measurement criteria depending on the context. School admissions use straight-line measurements to decide allocations. Travel assistance uses a specialised mapping system to measure the shortest available walking route along the road and footpath network for transport eligibility purposes.
7. Using its mapping system, the Council determined School B was closer to Mr X's home than School C when measured by the shortest available walking route. Mr X said he was misled by the Council’s public admissions map. However, the website also has a disclaimer stating admission maps cannot be used to determine transport eligibility.
8. The Education Act 1996 does not require councils to provide free transport to a parent's preferred school if there is a nearer suitable school available. Mr X said School B was not a realistic choice based on admission patterns from previous years. However, the Council provided evidence that School B had places available on national offer day and had not reached its Published Admission Number (PAN). It said Mr X's child would have been offered a place if he had named School B as a preference. There is not enough evidence the Council was at fault when it decided School B was the nearer suitable school for transport purposes.
9. Mr X said the Council previously granted transport assistance for his older child, who also attended School C. The independent review panel explained that it considers each case on its own facts and evidence. It said earlier decisions do not determine the outcome of later applications or set a precedent.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision because someone disagrees with it. Instead, we consider whether the organisation followed the correct process in reaching its decision. Where there is no evidence of fault in that process, we cannot question the merits of the decision itself. The evidence shows the panel considered all relevant information, including Mr X's comments about journey length, route safety, his child’s additional needs, and the Council’s published disclaimer, before reaching its decision. Mr X disagrees with the Council's decision and its use of a mapping system that is not publicly available. However, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or the appeal panel to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman