Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide free transport to school for Ms X’s child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has not properly considered her disabilities and her family circumstances when deciding not to provide free school transport for her child.
2. Ms X says the Council’s decision has caused ongoing distress and worry and is seeking a reconsideration of her appeal.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X applied to a school for her child based on the family’s faith. The school she chose is not the nearest suitable school available to her child.
6. Ms X complained the Council is not providing free school transport for her child on the basis that she has disabilities which impact her ability to get her child to school every day.
7. The Council’s appeal decision explains it has considered all the information provided to it in reaching a decision.
8. It explained that Ms X’s child is not eligible for free transport to school under the law.
9. It also explained that it had considered whether the family’s circumstances amounted to exceptional under its policy and found they do not.
10. The Council has decided that there is public transport available to Ms X’s child which they can use, and the Council is not responsible for the cost of this.
11. The law defines an eligible child as a child of compulsory school age who attends their nearest suitable school. The nearest suitable school does not have to be the most suitable under this definition.
12. I have seen the Council has also considered whether it should apply discretion based on the information provided and reached a decision that it will not.
13. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman