Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council decided a home to school transport application for post 16 education. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to warrant further investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not fairly assessed his daughter’s home to school transport application for post-16 travel.
2. He says this has resulted in her not being awarded transport and may therefore affect his daughter’s attendance or the family’s finances.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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), section 34(B))
5. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X applied for home to school transport for his daughter, C, to attend post 16 education at the school named in the Education, Health and Care plan. The Council refused Mr X’s application on the basis that C could be driven to school by her parents.
9. Mr X complained that C’s family cannot accommodate driving C to school with their working commitments and asked the Council to consider C’s anxieties. The Council considered the comments and explained it did not have a duty to consider parental working arrangements and there was not enough evidence to show C’s attendance would be affected and therefore discretion did not apply.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body; we consider whether there was fault in the Council’s decision-making process. If we consider it followed the process correctly, we cannot question whether the decision is right or wrong.
11. The Council considered the relevant information and the comments made on behalf of C when deciding whether to grant home to school transport. Although I understand Mr X’s disappointment, we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions as it has met its statutory duty.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr 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