Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council removed free school transport for his children. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council removed free school transport for his children after it reassessed their walking route as safe. Mr X said the route remained unsafe because of the speed of vehicles, lack of street lighting and having no “step off” for a section of the route. He wants the Council to review its assessment and reinstate free school transport.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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

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. In the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint, it said it had completed the walking route assessment over several months, using site visits and automatic traffic counters. The Council responded to Mr X’s concerns around lighting, traffic speed, stopping distances and visibility. It said it considered the walking route safe based on a decrease in the volume of traffic. It said it used peak traffic flow when completing its assessment.
7. We cannot say if the walking route is safe, we can only consider whether there was any fault in how the Council made its decision. The Council appointed appropriately qualified officers to complete the assessment. It used different methods to collect data, has considered non-statutory guidance and set out why it is satisfied the route is safe. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council undertook the assessment to justify our involvement.
8. As the Council considered the walking route safe, the Council removed free home-to-school transport for Mr X’s children. Mr X appealed that decision. An independent panel considered Mr X’s appeal. It decided the Council had applied its policy correctly and there were no extenuating circumstances to award transport. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached that decision, therefore we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman