Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council refusing to provide her daughter with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, complained about the decision not to provide her daughter with free transport to school.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

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. Miss X asked the Council to provide her daughter (Y) with free taxi transport to her primary school (School Z). The Council refused because it said Y was not attending the closest school to home. This meant Y was not eligible for free transport.
7. Councils must apply their transport policy when deciding entitlement to school transport. But they also have the discretion to consider exceptional circumstances. They must have a review or appeal process by which to do so.
8. Miss X has appealed the Council’s decision. Miss X explained Y previously attended a different school, but she felt it could not meet Y’s needs. Miss X said Y’s previous school had implemented a part-time timetable. Miss X said Y was being assessed because of her Special Educational Needs (SEN). Miss X could not take Y to and from School Z and needed to be home when her other child was collected and dropped off. Miss X said Y would not be able to travel to school independently because of her SEN.
9. An independent panel considered Miss X’s stage 2 appeal. They considered the information Miss X sent. The Council’s representative explained why the original application had been refused and that there were eleven schools closer than School Z. There was no automatic right to free transport. Miss X provided additional information about why she wanted Y to attend School Z and the difficulties it would cause if the Council did not provide free transport. The panel could ask questions.
10. The panel decided Miss X’s original application had been correctly dealt with. The panel noted why Miss X wanted her daughter to attend a different school. The panel considered Miss X’s reasons but decided not to make an exception to the Council’s policy. The panel refused Miss X’s appeal. The panel’s letter to Miss X explained its decision.
11. The Ombudsman is not a right of further appeal. We cannot question decisions where the proper process has been followed and if the Council’s decision making is not flawed. In this case, the Council correctly applied the law and its policy when it rejected Miss X’s original application. It then considered her appeals in line with its published policy. The panel looked at the information it was presented with, reached a decision it was entitled to, and explained its decision. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement and so we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to question the merits of the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman