Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide free school transport to 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 wrongly refused to provide her child, A, with free transport to school when they start secondary education. She also complains the appeal panel was not sufficiently independent.
2. Ms X says the Council has caused significant distress, worry and uncertainty for her family. She would like the Council to reconsider its decision.

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 for a secondary school place for her child and has been given a place at their first choice of school (School A).
6. At the time of the application, Ms X believed her child would use a free school bus service to access their new school.
7. The Council has decided Ms X’s child is not eligible for free school transport as the school they applied to is not the nearest suitable school.
8. Ms X says the decision to name School A as their first choice was based on where children from their local area have been given school places in the past.
9. She says that although School B is closer to their home, she had not believed her child would get a place there based on where local children had been given places before.
10. Ms X said she did not think her child would be given a place at School B as they do not have a sibling already attending that school.
11. The Council has said that if Ms X had named the nearest suitable school as her first choice, her child would be eligible for free school transport even if they were not given a place at that school.
12. Choosing to name School A as first choice when it is not the nearest suitable school, makes the decision to attend that school parental preference.
13. Where a child attends a school other than the nearest suitable school by parental choice, they are not an eligible child as defined by law for free school transport.
14. Ms X has criticised the way the Council has made the decision; however, the Council is correct in its application of the law here. Where a child does not come within the legal definition of an eligible child for this purpose, the Council does not have a duty to provide free school transport.
15. Ms X has questioned the independence of the appeal panel on the basis the panel members were seen speaking to the Council’s presenting officer before the appeal. This is not evidence of a lack of independence.
16. Ms X has also criticised the information the Council has provided to her and the form in which the decision making has been recorded. The appeal decision is detailed and explains how the Council reached the decision it has, and how that decision is in line with the Council’s duty.

Back to top

Final decision

17. 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