Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed in its duties to secure public transport and improperly spent grant money. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s duty as there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the grant money as it is unlikely it would add to the Council’s investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not meet its duties to provide public transport, including failing to adequately consult with local communities about their transport needs. He also says it misdirected grants provided by the Department for Transport. He says this means residents in rural communities are without suitable transport to access services.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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 have considered all the information Mr X provided. I have also considered the Council’s response to his complaint. I have written to Mr X with my draft decision and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X lives in a rural village. In February 2019, a commercial bus operator that provided a service to Mr X’s village and surrounding areas told the Council it could no longer continue. Mr X says this meant the villages in the area had severely limited access to public transport.
6. The Council decided it was not feasible to provide an alternative bus service due to the cost and low numbers of people using the service. This prompted Mr X to send a petition and legal information to the Council. Mr X felt the bus service had been unfit for purpose and its loss was further evidence the Council was failing in its statutory duty.

Transport Act 1985

7. The Transport Act 1985 places a duty on councils to ”secure the provision of such public passenger transport services as the council considers it appropriate to meet any public transport requirements within the county which would not, in their view, be met apart from any action taken by them for that purpose”. The Act does not dictate how councils should meet this duty.
8. The Council says that in May 2018 it reviewed some of its public transport contracts and provided an opportunity for the public to comment. It says it did not receive any comments from people in Mr X’s area. The Council is satisfied it met its duty, including identifying any public transport requirements that would otherwise not be met.
9. I have not seen any evidence to suggest the Council failed to meet its duty, or that it failed to consult members of the public adequately. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision, and the Ombudsman cannot criticise a council’s decision just because a complainant disagrees with it.

Department for Transport grant

10. Mr X says the Council misused grant funding received in 2011 from the Department for Transport. By 2016, the Council had spent the equivalent of the value of the grant on public transport and decided to move the grant money to its general fund. Mr X says the Council should have used the funding for public transport. In its complaint response, the Council said there was no stipulation in the grant requiring it to spend the money on public transport. The Council is satisfied it acted lawfully.
11. The Ombudsman must consider whether investigation is appropriate, given the information available. It is unlikely relevant records from 2011 and 2016 are still available. Therefore, it is doubtful investigation by the Ombudsman would be fair or could add anything to the Council’s investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and it is unlikely anything could be added to the Council’s investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman