Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about post-16 home to school transport for a young person with special educational needs. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. Miss X complaints about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for post 16 transport to college for her son, Y, who has an Education, Health, and Care Plan (EHC Plan). She says the Council has measured the distance between her home and the college indirectly as it has not included hills or roadworks.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Councils have no legal duty to provide travel assistance to young people aged over 16. However, the Council provides travel assistance, at its discretion, to young people up to the age of 25 who have special educational needs.
6. Y has EHC Plan and attends college. Miss X asked the Council to provide Y with transport.
7. The Council refused to provide transport for Y. Stating the home to college distance is less than three miles. Miss X asked for a review and the Council rejected her application again at stage one.
8. Miss X appealed against the decision. The Council’s Appeal Panel considered the appeal. It heard from Council officers, who explained their reasons for refusing Miss X's application. Miss X spoke to the panel. She explained her son’s special needs, her family circumstances, and the reasons for requesting home to college transports. Having heard from Officers and Miss X, the appeal panel decided to refuse Miss X’s application for school transport. It explained its reasons for deciding that Miss X’s application was not an exceptional case which justified exercising discretion and awarding transport.
9. Ms X says when measuring the route from home to college, the Council has failed to consider hills or roadworks. However, the Council’s website states it uses a mapping system to measure the nearest walking route to reach the school/college and measures walking routes along metalled roads. It also says commercial mapping systems are usually designed to measure only along driving routes and may vary. From the information Miss X has provided it appears she has measured driving route to school.
10. The Ombudsman cannot criticise the outcome of a decision which the Council has made correctly. The evidence shows the Council considered Ms X’s application and Y’s medical conditions along with other evidence she provided. The Council decided Y was not eligible for home to college transport. It was entitled to make this decision in line with its policy and there is no evidence the decision-making process was flawed.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision not to provide home to college transport for her son.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman