Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reject Mrs X’s appeal for home to school transport for her child Y. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision not to award her child Y home to school transport.
2. She said the Council failed to consider Y’s special educational needs (SEN) and this has put her and Y to stress and upset.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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 Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council operates a home to school transport scheme which offers free travel assistance to eligible school aged children. The Council’s policy states children who are unable to walk to school because of special educational needs (SEN) must support their application with a letter from a relevant SEN or medical professional confirming the child’s diagnosis and explaining how this would prevent the child from walking to and from school.
7. Mrs X applied to the scheme because she said her child Y was unable to walk to school due to her anxiety and diagnosed attention deficit disorder.
8. The Council declined to approve Mrs X’s application, stating there was no evidence Y could not reasonably be expected to walk to school. Mrs X appealed the decision, explaining more about herself and Y. She also supplied a letter from a doctor and a mental health professional confirming Y’s anxiety.
9. The Council considered Mrs X’s application again along with the supporting documents and rejected the application. The Council accepted that Y suffered with anxiety but said the information did not show why anxiety prevented Y from walking to school.
10. Mrs X remains unhappy with the Council’s decision and wants us to find it at fault. The Ombudsman cannot criticise the merits of a decision which has been correctly made. The evidence shows the Council considered Mrs X’s application and Y’s medical condition along with the statements made by her doctors. The Council decided Y was not eligible for home to school transport and it was entitled to make this decision in line with its policy.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman