Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school transport because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council refused her application for home to school transport for her children. She thinks the Council’s policy is unfair.

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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 set out her complaint to us in detail. I have carefully considered everything she said, although I have not included every detail here. We have limited resources, so I have focussed my attention on what I consider to be the core issue. I have included as few personal details as possible in my decision statement to protect the anonymity of Ms X and her children.
6. The core issue in Ms X’s complaint concerns the criteria used by the Council to determine eligibility for school transport.
7. For children living more than three miles from their nearest secondary school, the Council provides free transport to the nearest suitable school or a designated catchment school. The Council has designated transport catchment areas to help with the commissioning of school transport. Transport catchments are not necessarily the same as the catchment areas used by schools for admissions.
8. Ms X’s children do not attend their nearest school or the designated catchment school for transport purposes. They attend a school which is slightly further away.
9. Ms X believes the Council’s choice of catchment school is wrong. She says it does not reflect the choices of local families and the established links between primary and secondary schools in the area. She believes the school she has chosen should be the catchment school for transport purposes.
10. The Ombudsman is unable to help.
11. The Council’s legal duty is to provide transport to the nearest suitable school. In almost every circumstance, any state-funded mainstream school will be a suitable school.
12. In Cambridgeshire, the Council also offers transport to a designated catchment school. This offer is over and above the Council’s legal duty.
13. The Council has drawn a catchment boundary which excludes Ms X’s village from the transport catchment of the school she has chosen for her children.
14. It is for the Council, not the Ombudsman, to decide school catchments.
15. Ms X explained why she believes the school she has chosen should be the catchment school for transport purposes. She believes residents in her village are being treated unfairly.
16. I note Ms X’s views, but there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to justify an investigation.
17. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. There is, therefore, no worthwhile outcome achievable for us.

Back to top

Final decision

18. 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