Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint regarding home to school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council for us to be able to question its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained the Council refused to provide his daughter with free transport to school. Mr X says the Council’s policy regarding transport entitlement when a child lives at two addresses is flawed.

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. Mr X shares custody of his daughter (Y) with her mother. Mr X asked the Council to provide Y with free transport to school. The Council’s policy states that:

“Where two parents have joint custody and a child lives at two addresses, travel assistance will be considered for both addresses. The school must be the nearest qualifying school to one of the addresses (see section 5), both addresses must be within Central Bedfordshire and second address must either be on an existing route or it be possible to reroute an existing route in the case of SEND transport.”

7. The Council said the school Y attends meets the criteria for transport from her mother’s address. But there was no existing transport it could add Y to from Mr X’s address. The Council therefore rejected Mr X’s application.
8. 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.
9. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision. Mr X says that if a parent lives outside a school’s catchment area, like he does, there will never be any existing transport a student can be added to.
10. An independent panel considered Mr X’s stage 2 appeal. The panel considered the information Mr X sent and evidence from the Council. Mr X had the chance to present his case. Mr X explained the logistical issues he was faced with.
11. The panel decided the Council had properly applied its policy when it first refused Mr X’s request. The panel decided there were no exceptional circumstances to provide support. The panel therefore refused Mr X’s application.
12. The Ombudsman is not a right of further appeal. We cannot question decisions where the proper process has been followed and if there were no flaws in the Council’s decision making.
13. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s policy. Statutory guidance on home to school transport states there is no expectation councils will provide transport from two addresses if a child’s parents do not live together. The support the Council potentially offers from a second address is above the statutory minimum. It is not a position we will therefore criticise.
14. In this case, the Council rejected Mr X’s original application in line with its published policy. It then considered Mr X’s appeals. 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 in the way the Council considered Mr X’s application and appeals to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman