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 child’s needs and circumstances in deciding not to provide free transport to school.
2. Ms X says the Council has caused significant distress, inconvenience and uncertainty. She is seeking a reconsideration of the decision and for the transport to school to be agreed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X complained the Council has made a decision not to fund free transport to school for her child.
7. The Council considered its decision in light of Ms X’s appeal and the information she provided in support.
8. The law says a child is eligible for free travel to school if they are of compulsory school age, attend their nearest school and:

• live more than the statutory walking distance from school; or
• live within the statutory walking distance but cannot reasonably walk because of their needs/disability/mobility problem, even if accompanied by their parent;
• who live within the statutory walking distance but could not do so safely even if accompanied by their parent.

9. The Council acknowledged Ms X’s child is of compulsory school age and is attending her nearest suitable school. The school is within the distance set in law as walkable.
10. The Council’s appeal response details the panels consideration of the evidence provided and gives reasons why it did not consider the eligibility criteria has been met.
11. The appeal panel also considered Ms X’s non-attendance at the appeal hearing. It said the Council’s policy requires confirmation of attendance and photo ID to be provided before the date of the hearing.
12. It is accepted by Ms X that her ID was not provided before the date of the hearing.
13. Although Ms X did not attend the hearing, the panel has considered the evidence provided in support of the appeal.

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