Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to decline Miss X’s application for post 16 school transport for her child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered the matter to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for post 16 school transport for her child to attend college. Miss X says her child’s anxiety is high due to worrying about being able to continue with further education. Miss X wants the Council to provide help instead of just turning down the application.

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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X applied for post 16 school transport for her son to attend an out-of-area college. Miss X has concerns about her child’s ability to travel independently because of their disabilities. Miss X says they have tried to practice the bus route needed to attend their preferred college but cannot manage it.
7. Miss X says that pupils who bullied her child at their previous school are due to attend the local college. She states that her child would be at risk of experiencing panic attacks if required to attend the same college.
8. The Council declined Miss X’s application and appeal for transport assistance. In its response it explained it refused the application because the preferred college was located outside the local area boundary and the same course was available at the local college.
9. The Council offered Miss X’s child a referral for travel training to assist with planning a route to the preferred out-of-area college. It also advised that it would reconsider its decision if evidence could be provided to demonstrate that Miss X’s son was unable to study his preferred courses at the local college.
10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. In reaching its decision the Council followed its policies and its appeals procedure and explained the reasons for its decision. In addition, the Council offered alternative solutions.
11. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the Council made.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman