Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the decision to refuse the complainant’s application and appeal for school transport assistance for her son. 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 has made a flawed decision not to provide school transport assistance for her son.

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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X’s son has special educational needs and an Education Health and Care plan. He attends a specialist school. Mrs X contends that his needs are such that the Council should provide him with school transport assistance. The Council has declined to do so. It is about this decision that she complains.
6. The correspondence Mrs X has provided shows that her application has completed the Council’s review and appeal process. The process, which includes review by a senior officer and an appeal hearing, complies with the relevant statutory guidance. In Mrs X’s view, the Council failed to give sufficient weight to the evidence she provided when deciding to refuse her application.
7. It is not for the Ombudsman to take a view on whether Mrs X’s son should be awarded school transport. 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.
8. There is no dispute that Mrs X’s child lives within the statutory walking distance from the school, and does not therefore qualify for school transport on that basis. The question for the Council therefore was whether exceptional circumstances applied. The decision letters at both stages of the review and appeal process show that Mrs X’s grounds of appeal were considered, and she was able to attend the appeal meeting to make her case in person. The decisions are properly set out and appear reasonable and defensible in the circumstances of the case.
9. 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 in which 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

10. 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