Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to recover debt from a business. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not inform his business it terminated a school transport route. He said he tried to speak to the Council about the issue, but it did not respond to his messages. He said it issued him an overpayment bill which it passed to a debt recovery agency whilst he contested it.
2. Mr X also complained the Council delayed responding to his complaint. He said the Council’s actions caused disruption to his business and damaged its reputation. He wants the Council to pause debt recovery and apologise.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (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. Mr X complained the Council did not inform him it terminated a school transport route and it issued his business an overpayment bill. As part of the complaint process the Council met with Mr X to discuss his complaint.
7. The school informed the Council the child had not attended since September 2024 in May 2025. The Council then emailed Mr X to state it would terminate the contract with immediate effect and recoup the overpayment. Mr X did not inform the Council the child had not attended prior to receiving the email.
8. During the complaint process the Council paused debt recovery. As a gesture of goodwill, the Council said it would reduce the overpayment bill by 50% and said it was open to discussing a repayment plan with Mr X.
9. The Council acted in line with its contract agreement when it gave notice to end the transport route and recoup the overpayment. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.
10. Mr X complained that the Council delayed responding to his complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant out involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman