Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to grant free school transport for the complainant’s son. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for free school transport for her son (Y). She says of the two closer schools to her home, one is oversubscribed so Y would not have got a place and the other has a further safe walking distance from their home.

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 Mrs X, and information on the Council’s website.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Councils have a duty to provide home to school transport for eligible children. The Council’s Home to School Transport policy provides details of how it assesses eligibility for school transport and how it will meet its duties.
6. To be eligible for free school transport a child aged 8 to 16:
• must be attending the nearest available suitable school; and
• must live more than 3 miles from the school by safe walking distance.
7. The Council refused Mrs X’s application because Y is attending a preferred school, and not the nearest suitable school, which had places available at the time of allocation.
8. Mrs X applied for a place for Y at secondary schools I shall call A, B and C. Y was offered a place at school C.
9. Mrs X applied for school transport as school C is more than 3 miles from their home.
10. The Council refused her application as it says schools D and E are closer to Y’s home.
11. Mrs X says school E is oversubscribed and Y would not have got a place if they had applied. She says school D has a longer unsafe walking distance than school B. Therefore she considers school C (which she applied for) is the nearest suitable school based on safe walking distance.
12. However, Department for Education guidance states it is up to the local authority to decide suitable walking routes.
13. Mrs X’s husband attended the Council’s school transport appeal panel meeting. The panel noted that School C is 4.4 walking miles from Y’s home and School D is 3.7 walking miles from home. The Council decided not to uphold the appeal as the parents chose to apply for school C and it is not the nearest suitable school.
14. We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council’s decision appears in line with its Home to School Transport policy. The appeal records show that Mr X attended the appeal and was able to present their case. The appeal panel considered the arguments, the Council’s position and the guidelines set out in the policy. It also considered whether there was good reason to depart from its policy in this case, but decided there was not. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how it reached its decision to warrant an investigation. We cannot question a council’s decision if it is taken without fault.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided not to grant free school transport for Y.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman