Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council refused to provide school transport to either of the two schools named in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because it is reasonable to expect Ms X to ask the Council for an appeal.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has named two schools in her child, B’s Education, Health and Care Plan. She complains the Council has named her parental preference, School T, but refused to provide school transport. Ms X complains it has instead decided the other school named, School U, is the nearest suitable school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (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 and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In B’s latest Education, Health and Care Plan, the Council has named two schools: School T (Ms X’s parental preference) and School U. The Council has decided both schools are suitable. But, the Council has refused to provide school transport to School T because it considers Ms X’s choice is incompatible with the efficient use of resources. Instead, the Council considers School U is the nearest suitable school for school travel purposes. Ms X is unhappy that the Council has refused to provide school transport to either of the schools named in B’s Plan. Ms X says, if the Council considers School U to be the nearest suitable school, then it should provide school transport for B.
7. In its complaint response, the Council sent Ms X details of how to appeal its school transport decisions. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to appeal the decisions. The Council should be given the opportunity to consider Ms X’s appeal and whether it is satisfied that Ms X’s preferred choice of school is not compatible with the efficient use of its resources. If Ms X remains unhappy with the Council's decision, she may wish to make a fresh complaint to the Ombudsman.
8. Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision that School U is suitable for B’s needs. She wishes for the Council to amend B’s Plan by removing School U as a named suitable placement. In its complaint response, the Council explained to Ms X she has a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal about the suitability of the placements named in B’s Plan. It is open to Ms X to appeal to the SEND Tribunal about this matter and to ensure she meets the timescales for lodging her SEND Tribunal appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council refused to provide school transport to either of the two schools named in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because it is reasonable to expect Ms X to ask the Council for an appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman