Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council delaying in invoicing her for her contribution towards post 16 home to school transport which she accepts she owes. We are unlikely to find any Council fault has directly caused her an injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council delayed in recouping money she owed it for home to 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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (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 Mrs X which includes the Council’s reply to her.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In April 2025 the Council granted post 16 home to school transport for Y for the academic year 2025/26. Mrs X is Y’s mother. Mrs X agreed to pay a contribution towards the cost of £483.
6. The Council invoiced Mrs X in March 2026. Mrs X complained to the Council about the delay in doing so. She said the Council should reduce the amount she owed because of its delay in invoicing. The Council refused. In its March 2026 reply it explained its policy which it says Mrs X knew about when she applied for the transport. It also explained Mrs X could spread the cost by paying by direct debit. Mrs X paid the full amount in May 2026.
7. Mrs X complained to us. She said the Council should not have continued to send chasing letters whilst her complaint was waiting a response. She says the Council chasing her caused her a significant amount of stress and anxiety.

Analysis

8. If the Council had acted in the way Mrs X wanted and invoiced her in September 2025, she would have had to pay the amount owed eight months earlier than she did. Instead she benefitted from having that money, which she accepts she owed the Council, for eight months longer than she should have. We are unlikely to find she has been caused any injustice by the Council’s delayed invoicing and chasing her.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find any Council fault has caused Mrs X a direct injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman