Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about home to school transport for her child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained she did not have the opportunity to properly present her case to the appeal panel. Miss X said the panel was unable to fully understand the family circumstances as a result.
2. Miss X said the decision does not recognise the severe impact on her child’s mental health and has created financial hardship.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We consider 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))
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X appealed against the initial decision to refuse free home to school transport for her child. It appears Miss X agreed for the independent appeal panel hearing to be held online.
8. Miss X said she had poor connection on the day of the appeal hearing and was unable to properly present her case. She also said she was unable to upload important documents to support the appeal. This meant the appeal panel did not have a full understanding of her child’s circumstances.
9. The available evidence does not suggest there were connection issues during the appeal panel hearing. The initial outcome letter provided Miss X with details of how to upload documents to support the appeal. An appeals email address is also included in this letter.
10. The appeal records show the panel considered the circumstances of Miss X’s child, along with the family. It stated Miss X’s child did not automatically qualify for free home to school transport because they did not attend the nearest suitable school which would be eligible for transport. It also appears to have considered its discretionary powers to provide transport outside the Council’s policy.
11. Although I cannot say Miss X did not have any issues with connection on the day of the hearing, it appears she had opportunity to provide information for the initial application, appeal, and appeal panel. It was open to Miss X to tell the Panel or Clerk on the day she could not hear the proceedings or take part effectively.
12. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
13. In making its decision, the organisation took account of the relevant guidance, its own policies and information from Miss X. The organisation followed the appropriate procedures when making this decision and I cannot therefore criticise it.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman