Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide her son with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complained the Council has refused to provide her son (Y) with free transport to school.

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 son (Y) has special educational needs and an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). Mrs X asked the Council to provide Y with free transport to his new secondary school. The Council refused Mrs X’s application. It said the distance was less than the required three miles and there was no evidence Y could not walk to school, accompanied as necessary by an adult. This meant legally there was no entitlement to free transport.
6. Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision. Mrs X said Y could not walk to school on his own and his parent’s other commitments meant they could not take him to school.
7. An independent panel considered Mrs X’s appeal at the final stage of the Council’s appeals process. Mrs X did not attend the appeal. The panel considered information from Mrs X and the Council. The panel decided the Council had properly applied its published policy. The panel decided there was not enough evidence to show the Council should provide transport. The panel refused Mrs X’s appeal.
8. 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 a complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. In this case, the Council correctly applied the law and its policy when it rejected Mrs X’s original application. The Council then considered Mrs X’s appeals in line with its published policy. The stage 2 panel looked at the information it was presented with. This included information from Mrs X and the Council. The panel reached a decision it was entitled to and sent its decision in writing. There is no evidence the panel was not independent and did not properly consider the appeal.
10. While I know Mrs X disagrees with the panel’s decision there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in how it considered Mrs X’s case to warrant our involvement. We will not therefore investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman