Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide post-16 transport to college. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, is a foster carer for Mr Y. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision not to provide Mr Y with post-16 transport.

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

What I found

Background

5. The law requires councils to publish a transport policy statement setting out the transport arrangements they consider it necessary to make to facilitate attendance at education or training and the financial help available for learners aged 16-19. The law does not, however, require the provision of any transport. We expect councils to look at each case on its merits and not to have blanket policies.

What happened

6. Mrs X asked the Council to provide Mr Y with post-16 transport to college. Mr Y has an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) and previously received transport to school. Mrs X wanted the transport to continue to help with Mr Y’s social development. Mrs X also has other commitments which make it difficult for her to take him to college.
7. The Council refused Mrs X’s request. It said Mrs X had a car she could use to take Mr Y to college. The Council said it would not normally consider work or childcare commitments as a reason to provide transport.
8. In line with the Council’s post-16 transport policy a stage 2 panel considered Mrs X’s appeal. The panel considered information from the Council and Mrs X. The notes show the panel considered the fact that funding from a post-16 bursary fund was available to Mrs X. The panel discussed Mrs X’s reasons for wanting transport and there was a discussion around the other financial support available to Mrs X as a foster carer. Mrs X explained she could take Mr Y to college, but it would be difficult next year.
9. The panel considered the information presented and decided the Council had correctly refused Mrs X’s original application. The panel decided not to make an exception to its policy and to provide transport to college. The panel refused Mrs X’s appeal.

Assessment

10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
11. The Council’s original decision to refuse transport was in line with its published policy. Mrs X had the chance to appeal this decision, and the Council considered her appeals via its published process. Mrs X had the chance to present her case, and the panel considered information from Mrs X and the Council. The panel’s letter to Mrs X explained its decision.
12. While I understand Mrs X is disappointed with the Council’s decision there is not enough evidence of fault for us to become involved.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman