Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for free school transport for her son. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains about the Council’s decision her son does not qualify for free home to school transport.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start 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))
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X applied for free school transport for her son. He previously qualified for and received free school transport because he was under 8 years old and the school was over 2 miles from home at a safe walking distance of 2.9 miles.
8. Under the Council’s policy under 8s qualify for free school transport if they are attending the nearest available and suitable school and the child lives more than 2 miles from the school. However, this entitlement ended when he turned 8 because the distance criteria changes at this age.
9. In order to be eligible for free school transport a child aged 8 to 16 must be attending the nearest available and suitable school and must live more than 3 miles from the school by safe walking distance.
10. The Council refused Mrs X’s application because, the school, at just under 2 radial miles from their home and 2.9 miles by safe walking distance, did not meet the minimum 3 miles distance criteria for children aged 8-16 as set out in its Home to School Transport Policy.
11. Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision via the stage two appeal panel and provided additional information about their circumstances in support of the appeal.
12. The panel considered the additional information Mrs X provided but did not uphold the appeal. It was satisfied the application did not meet the eligibility criteria and there were no grounds to cause it to depart from its policy.
13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint, This is because there is no sign of fault in the way the decision to refuse the application was reached, We are not an appeal body and it is not our role to question the merits of the Council’s decisions where, as here, there is no sign of fault in the way it was reached. This is a decision it was entitled to make and it was made in line with the published eligibility criteria which were not met.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman