Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to consider Mr X’s appeal against its decision to refuse his application to be a school transport driver following a negative disclosure barring service (DBS)check. There is insufficient evidence of any fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal to allow him a personal appeal against its decision to withhold a driver operators badge for school services following a negative DBS check. He says the appeal should be available to individual applicants and that the same officer responded at both stages of the complaints procedure.

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X applied to be a driver for a bus company engaged in a contract for school transport. The Council’s policy requires the operator who holds the contract with it to provide DBS checks for its drivers for the Council’s approval before a badge is issued to the operator. In Mr X’s case the check revealed previous offences and the Council refused the application and barred him for two years from re applying.
6. Mr X wished to appeal the decision but he ceased his employment with the operator before it could submit an appeal on his behalf. The Council does not accept direct appeals from individuals because they have to be employed by an operator who is applying for the badge.
7. The officer who responded at the first stage of the complaints procedure explained to Mr X why he could not accept an appeal. He responded to Mr X’s escalation of the process because the Council could not accept the appeal and he was ineligible to make it. The officer did not carry out any appeal so it was not unreasonable for him to re-iterate the Council’s policy as no further progress could be made.
8. 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 the 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 someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to consider Mr X’s appeal against its decision to refuse his application to be a school transport driver following a negative disclosure barring service (DBS)check. There is insufficient evidence of any fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman