Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to properly consider the complainant’s son’s medical needs when considering her appeal for appropriate education transport for him. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant our intervention.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains that the Council failed to properly consider her son’s medical needs when considering her appeal for appropriate education transport for him.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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. Miss X ‘s son has special educational needs and an Education Health and Care plan. He is entitled to discretionary education transport assistance. For the academic year 2024/2025, the Council awarded transport in the form of a bus pass.
6. Miss X says bus travel is inappropriate for her son. She used her right to appeal against the transport award, setting out her dissatisfaction and providing the Council with medical evidence in support of her appeal. The appeal completed the two stages of the council’s appeal process. It was upheld at the second stage and a personal travel budget was awarded.
7. Miss X says the personal budget does not meet her son’s needs and will not enable her to take him to college. She believes the evidence she provided was not properly taken into account and wants her appeal to be reconsidered.
8. It is not for the Ombudsman to take a view on what form Miss X’s son’s transport assistance should take. That is a matter for the Council. Our role is to consider whether there is evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision and, if so, whether that fault is likely to have been material to the outcome. Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision, but that does not mean it is flawed.
9. The evidence shows that the Council considered Miss X’s representations through its appeal procedure. The notes of the appeal hearings and the decision letters show that Miss X’s grounds of appeal were considered. The final outcome is properly set out and appears reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances of the case.
10. The weight given to Miss X’s case was a matter for the professional judgement of the decision makers and there is no evidence of fault in the way 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

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman