Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about home to school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. It is also reasonable for Mr X to use the Council’s appeals process if he wants to challenge the decision not to provide his son with free transport.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained about the Council’s handling of his request for home to school transport. Mr X is unhappy the Council refused his request. Mr X says the Council failed to provide information about its policies when he applied for a school place. Mr X is unhappy the Council could not say if his child would be able to access paid transport. Mr X is unhappy with how the Council has dealt with his complaints.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s son was due to start secondary school in September 2024. Mr X therefore asked the Council to provide him with free transport. The Council refused Mr X’s request on the basis his son would not be attending either the closest school to home or the catchment school for his home address.
6. Mr X is unhappy the Council has refused his application for free transport. Mr X has complained to the Council about its decision and a lack of information about transport eligibility as part of the school admissions process. Mr X has raised the issue of other children who seem to be receiving transport in similar circumstances. Mr X is unhappy the Council could not say if his son could access transport on a paid basis. He is also unhappy with the way the Council has dealt with his complaints.
7. We will not start an investigation into Mr X’s complaint.
8. Councils have a duty to provide free transport to eligible children. Eligible children include those attending the nearest suitable school to home. The Council’s policy goes further and also provides free transport to children attending their catchment school. Based on the evidence available we could not criticise the Council’s decision to refuse Mr X’s application. It has applied its policy which aligns with and extends beyond the legal requirements. There is not enough evidence of fault for us to become involved.
9. Councils are also required to have in place an appeals process for parents who want to challenge decisions about their child’s transport. This includes situations where an application has been refused. If Mr X thinks the Council has made a mistake in his application or there are exceptional circumstances, then it is reasonable for Mr X to use the Council’s appeals process. Mr X could also raise the issue of other children receiving transport. If Mr X was unhappy with how the Council dealt with the appeal, he could come back to the Ombudsman.
10. Mr X says the Council did not provide enough information about transport eligibility as part of the school admissions process. The Council’s response explained it sends letter to schools to distribute at the start of year 6. Information is available on the Council’s website. There is also a disclaimer in the school admissions process that explains if parents do not list the catchment or nearest school then they may be responsible for transport. Based on the evidence I have seen the Council has not failed to follow its own policies or any legislative requirements about providing information. There is not enough evidence of fault here for us to investigate.
11. Mr X is also unhappy the Council could not say if his son could access paid transport. The Council explained this was because it needed to ensure all eligible children were accommodated before offering places to non-entitled travellers. This is not an unusual situation, and it is for the Council to decide how and if it offers places to non-entitled travellers. We would not criticise it for taking such an approach. The Council says Mr X’s son now has a place on the vehicle. We could not achieve anything more.
12. Finally, Mr X is unhappy with how the Council has dealt with his complaints. It is not a good use of our resources to look at complaint handling as a standalone issue if we are not going to look at the issues which led to the original complaint. This applies here.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault, and it is reasonable for Mr X to use the Council’s own appeals process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman