Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to award the complainant’s daughter a Personal Transport Budget, rather than the complainant’s preferred form of education transport assistance. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mrs X, complains that the Council is at fault in failing to provide appropriate education transport to enable her daughter to attend sixth-form college.

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))

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. Mrs X’s daughter has an Education Health and Care plan and attends sixth-form college. The Council has made a discretionary award of school transport assistance in the form of a personal transport budget (PTB). Mrs X appealed against the Council’s decision.
6. Mrs X says the award of a PTB is not appropriate. She says she cannot make the arrangements necessary for her daughter to attend college every day and that, as a result, she is missing out on education to which she is entitled. She wants the matter to be reconsidered and her daughter provided with transport to college.
7. There is no dispute that Mrs X’s daughter qualifies for education transport assistance. This has been recognised in the discretionary award the Council has made. The question is whether the award of a PTB is appropriate, or whether some other form of assistance should be awarded.
8. It is not for the Ombudsman to take a view on whether a PTB is appropriate. That is a matter for the Council. Our role is to consider whether there is evidence of fault in the way in which the Council made its decision and, if so, whether that fault is likely to have been material to the outcome. Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision, but that does not mean it is flawed.
9. The evidence shows that the Council considered Mrs X’s representations through its appeal procedure. The minutes of the appeal hearings and the decision letters show that Mrs X’s grounds of appeal were considered. The decisions are properly set out and appear reasonable and defensible in the circumstances of the case.
10. The weight given to Mrs X’s case was a matter for the professional judgement of the decision makers and there is no evidence of fault in the way the decisions were made. In the absence of such evidence, the Ombudsman cannot criticise those decisions, or intervene to substitute an alternative view. We will not therefore investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman