Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for home to school transport for her child, Y. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council refused her application for free home to school transport for her child, Y.
2. Mrs X says the matter impacted her financially.
3. Mrs X wants the Council to provide home to school transport for Y.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X applied for home to school transport for her child, Y, under the low-income eligibility criteria in early March 2024. Y did not attend one of the schools nearest to their home. In the application, Mrs X explained Y did not attend a closer school because she felt the current school is best suited to meets Y’s needs.
8. The Council rejected Mrs X’s application. It told her because Y did not attend one of the three closest schools to her home, Y did not qualify for home to school transport under its policy.
9. Mrs X appealed the decision. Mrs X explained Y has special educational needs and disabilities. She said even if Y attended the nearest school, this would still be over a 30-minute walk from her home and Y would not be able to walk in any case.
10. The Council considered Mrs X’s appeal at stage one of its process. It decided that because Y does not have an Education, Health and Care Plan naming their current school, the “nearest suitable school” would be one closer to the family home. It therefore rejected Mrs X’s appeal.
11. Mrs X appealed again and asked the Council to consider her application at stage two of its appeals process. The Council considered Mrs X’s appeal but did not find any reason to depart from its policy. It informed Mrs X it rejected her appeal in late April 2024.

Analysis

12. We are not an appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
13. In this case, the Council correctly applied the relevant tests when determining whether to award home to school transport for Y. It determined Y was not an eligible child because they attended a school which was not their closest school.
14. Consequently, there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman, and we will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman