Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about educational travel support. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not use its discretion to give his child, Z, travel support when they progressed to sixth form studies.
2. Mr X said the Council did not consider all the information properly when making its decision.
3. Mr X wants the Council to reconsider its decision and award travel support to Z.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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), as amended, 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 Mr X.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X applied to the Council for travel support when Z finished secondary school.
9. Councils have a duty to publish a transport policy statement setting out the transport arrangements they consider it necessary to make to facilitate attendance at education or training and the financial help available. The provision of transport support is at the Council’s discretion.
10. The Council considered Mr X’s application and supporting evidence. It refused his application, saying travel support was not necessary to enable Z to maintain attendance.
11. Mr X appealed the decision at stage one and stage two of the Council’s appeals process. The appeal panel upheld the decision, saying its travel assistance policy had been correctly applied and the threshold for extenuating circumstances had not been met.
12. We will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely that we would find fault. We do not act as an appeal body and can only consider if there was fault in the way the Council made its decision.
13. The evidence shows the Council properly considered each point in its policy, the information it had about Z’s case and the possibility of giving transport in extenuating circumstances. Although Mr X disagrees with the decision, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way it was made.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman