Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a school transport appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council relied on wrong information and did not consider all information in her appeal against its decision not to provide school transport for her child.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Local authorities must make suitable home to school travel arrangements as they consider necessary for ‘eligible children’ of compulsory school age to attend their ‘qualifying school’. ‘Eligible children’ include children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot reasonably be expected to walk to school because of their special educational needs.
7. A child will not normally be eligible solely because their parent’s work commitments or caring responsibilities mean they are unable to accompany their child themselves. Councils must consider cases where the parent says there are good reasons why they are unable to accompany their child, or make other suitable arrangements for their journey, and make a decision on the basis of the circumstances of each case.
8. Mrs X’s child has special educational needs (“SEN”). She says Council staff wrongly referred to her child being in mainstream school which she says may have impacted its decision.
9. The documents show the Council considered all available information in its decision to uphold that Mrs X’s child is not eligible for school transport. This included information about her child’s SEN as outlined in his Education Health and Care Plan. And information provided by Mrs X about her caring responsibilities and financial circumstances. The documents show it did not rely on the type of school attended, in its decision making. There is no evidence of fault with how the Council made its decision and therefore we cannot question the outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman