Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide free school transport for her child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s refusal to provide free school transport for her child, Y. She says it did not consider Y’s needs and their circumstance appropriately.

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))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Y has special educational needs (SEN) and an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Y started in their current school in September 2024.
7. Ms X says Y received free school transport to their previous school – a taxi service. Ms X wants the Council to continue the taxi service to Y’s new school.
8. Government guidance says a child is not automatically eligible for free transport on grounds of their SEN or EHC Plan if they are able to ‘walk’ to school when accompanied by their parent. On accompaniment, the guidance notes councils must consider cases where there are good reasons why a parent is unable to accompany their child, such as due to parent’s disability or mobility.
9. Relevant to Ms X’s case, the Council said Y’s new school is 0.5 miles walking distance away. And that Ms X is available to safely accompany Y who is able to walk to school. It considered Ms X’s family circumstance and said Ms X is also able to arrange suitable transport through family support if needed.
10. The Council added that any offer it would have made on approval would have been for a multi-pickup vehicle, which Ms X said is unsuitable for Y’s needs. The Council said a taxi service is not feasible under the circumstance.
11. I appreciate Ms X is unhappy but there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making. It considered Y’s needs and Ms X’s circumstances in line with the government guidance. It explained its decision clearly. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making and so I cannot question the merits of its decision. Therefore, I will not investigate Ms X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman