Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of home to school transport support for her child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council refused her application for home to school transport support for her child, Y. The Council says Y does not attend one of the three nearest qualifying schools to the family home. Mrs X says Y has neurodiverse traits and would find it difficult to change schools. She says the family moved because of health problems and the property was the only suitable accommodation available. Mrs X says the Council’s decision has caused significant stress and affected the family’s health. She wants the Council to reconsider its decision.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Following the family’s house move, Y no longer attended one of the three nearest qualifying schools to their new home address. The information provided also showed Y lived more than six miles from the school. As a result, Y did not qualify for free home to school transport under the Council’s transport policy or the statutory low-income criteria.
7. Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision, explaining the family was forced to move homes due to health reasons and that Y has neurodiverse traits. The appeal records show the panel considered Mrs X’s representations and the circumstances surrounding the move.
8. As part of its consideration of whether exceptional circumstances applied to override its policy, the panel checked information held by the Council’s Special Educational Needs service. This confirmed Y did not have an Education, Health and Care Plan and there was no recorded evidence of special educational needs requiring transport support. The panel also sought information from Y’s school, which did not identify any vulnerabilities or support needs that would justify an exception to the Council’s transport policy.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision because someone disagrees with it. Instead, we consider whether the organisation followed the correct process in reaching its decision. Where there is no evidence of fault in that process, we cannot question the merits of the decision itself. The available evidence shows the panel considered the relevant information, reviewed Mrs X’s representations and made enquiries to establish whether exceptional circumstances applied before reaching its final decision to not uphold her appeal. While Mrs X disagrees with the outcome, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council or the appeal panel reached its decision to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in its decision-making process to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman