Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council refusing to provide her daughter with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, complained about the decision not to provide her daughter with free transport to school.

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))
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 considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X asked the Council to provide her daughter (Y) with free transport to her secondary school (School 2). Y is due to start Year 10 in September 2024. Ms X currently pays for Y to travel to school on a minibus, but that option is no longer available. The Council refused Ms X’s request for transport because Y is not attending the ‘nearest suitable’ (closest) school to home. This meant Y was not eligible for free transport.
7. Councils must apply their transport policy when deciding entitlement to school transport. But they also have the discretion to consider exceptional circumstances. They must have a review or appeal process by which to do so.
8. Ms X has appealed the Council’s decision. Ms X said she had originally applied for a place at her closest school (School 1) but it did not offer Y a place The local primary school was a feeder school for School 2. Ms X explained she took Y off School 1’s waiting list to remove any uncertainty about Y’s future. Ms X did not want to transfer Y to a closer school and there was no way to get Y to school from September 2024. Ms X would need to leave her job. The Council had said it would transport Y to an alternative school and Ms X was happy to pay the difference.
9. An independent panel considered Ms X’s stage 2 appeal. They considered the information Ms X sent and evidence from the Council.
10. The panel decided the Council had correctly dealt with Ms X’s application. While Ms X had applied for a place at School 1, there were other schools closer than School 2. These could have offered Y a place on national offer day and places were still available. If Y had remained on the waiting list for School 1, she would have been offered a place. The panel decided it was Ms X’s choice to send Y to School 2 and there were no exceptional reasons to provide transport. The panel refused Ms X’s appeal. The panel’s letter to Ms X explained its decision.
11. The Ombudsman is not a right of further appeal. We cannot question decisions where the proper process has been followed and if the Council’s decision making is not flawed.
12. Statutory guidance on home to school transport states than when a child’s nearest school is oversubscribed, the nearest school with places available is their nearest suitable school for travel purposes.
13. In this case, the Council correctly applied the law and its policy when it rejected Ms X’s original application. School 1 was oversubscribed, but School 2 was not the nearest school with places available. This was still the case. School 2 was not therefore the nearest suitable school for travel purposes and there was no entitlement to free transport.
14. The Council then considered Ms X’s appeals in line with its published policy. The panel looked at the information it was presented with, reached a decision it was entitled to, and explained its decision.
15. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement and so we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to question the merits of the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman