Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to change a named home to school transport provider for a child she cares for because there is insufficient evidence of fault, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to change a named transport provider for a child, Y, she cares for. Mrs X says the change will cause disruption to Y and is poor value for money.
2. Mrs X wants the Council to keep the original transport provider.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant which included the Council’s response to her complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X cares for a child, Y, who has special educational needs. Y is transported from home to school by taxi provider A.
7. The Council retendered the contact for Y’s transport and awarded provider B. It told Mrs X the transport provider would change.
8. Mrs X complained to the Council. She said provider B was poor value for money because it cost more than provider A. She also said the decision would negatively affect Y because they struggle with change and raised concerns about the route provider B would use. Mrs X asked the Council to keep provider A.
9. The Council responded to Mrs X and told her provider B was awarded the contract in line with its tendering process and it could not award contracts outside the procedure. It told Mrs X provider B was experienced in providing transport for children with special educational needs and would route the journey to meet their needs.

Analysis

10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant investigation, and further investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome. The Council said it awarded the contract in line with its procurement process and named provider B. It is for the Council to decide what provider to use following the procurement process.
11. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants. Even if we found fault, we cannot tell the Council to use provider A.
12. In addition, any impact on Y from the change in provider is not yet known because the change has not yet taken place. Therefore, we cannot say whether this has caused Y any injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman