Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to withdraw a free school bus service. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has made a decision to withdraw a free school bus service. She also complains the members of the appeal panel that reviewed the decision were not sufficiently independent.
2. Ms X is seeking a new safety assessment and a new appeal with a different panel.

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. The Council reviewed a free school bus route it had been providing and decided to withdraw the service. In reaching its decision, it used an external organisation to carry out a safety review of the walking route to school.
7. Ms X complained that if the Council withdrew the bus service, her child will have to walk a route which she does not consider to be safe.
8. She said the organisation which carried out the safety review is not independent as they have an existing contractual relationship with the Council, and that the review should have been used together with local context and knowledge.
9. Local authorities must provide free travel arrangements, to allow eligible children to attend school.
10. Eligible children are those who are of compulsory school age, who attend their nearest suitable school and, either live more than the statutory walking distance from that school, or, cannot be reasonably expected to walk the route due to their special educational needs, disability or mobility issues, or because the route is not reasonably safe even if they were accompanied by a parent.
11. Ms X’s child lives within the statutory walking distance of their school, but she said the walking route is not safe.
12. The Council’s decision was considered by a two stage appeal. The panel concluded the decision was in line with the Council’s policy and with its statutory duties.
13. It detailed how it had considered concerns raised by local parents to satisfy itself the decision was sound and that the walking route was reasonably safe.
14. The panel also walked the route to see it for themselves and identified repair work which it agreed will be done to ensure the route is suitable.
15. Although there is a disagreement between the Council and Ms X as to what amounts to a reasonably safe walking route, this does not mean the Council is at fault.
16. An existing contractual relationship does not negate the independence of the safety review.
17. Ms X also questioned the independence of the appeal panel. The members of the appeal panel are independent of the original decision, which is what we would expect to see.
18. I have not seen any reason to believe the Council has not reached its decisions in the manner we would expect it to.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence that the Council is at fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman