Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Authority’s decision to no longer provide her father, Mr Y with bus on demand services. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Authority’s handling to justify our involvement. We also cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains on behalf of her father, Mr Y, about the Authority’s decision to no longer provide bus on demand services to him. Ms X says Mr Y is no longer able to access his community, friends or family which has caused him significant distress. Ms X wants the Authority to change the area it covers to include bus on demand services for Mr Y. She says the Council responsible for Mr Y’s area does not have the same service availability meaning it is impossible to arrange transport for Mr Y.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Authority has apologised to Ms X for not giving notice it would no longer be providing bus on demand services to Mr Y from the end of 2025. It explained it had previously made an exception to provide these services to people (including Mr Y) living just outside its area. The Authority explained it could no longer continue to make this exception as it wanted to ensure it increased service access to eligible residents in its area. The Authority recognised the difficulties Ms X was having with sourcing alternative transport for Mr Y to replace its service.
5. Ultimately, the Authority was not responsible for delivering this service to Mr Y. It does not appear to have acted with fault in deciding to no longer offer a service it did as an exception. Its apology to Ms X for not telling her about this change sooner is an appropriate outcome for the injustice caused. There is nothing more we could meaningfully achieve in this case by investigating further.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Authority’s handling to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman