Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council wrongly refused her application for home to school transport for her child. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council wrongly refused her application for her child, Y’s, home to school transport.
2. Miss X says the matter has caused her frustration and distress, and meant Y was unable to attend school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council refused to provide home to school transport for her child, Y.
7. Miss X told the Council about her mental health difficulties. She explained how this prevented her from taking Y to school. Miss X also told the Council it had provided transport in previous years under similar circumstances.
8. The Council:
• considered the information provided by Miss X including supporting documents and evidence;
• decided Y was not an eligible child as defined by the Education Act 1996;
• held a stage one review of Miss X’s application and reached the same conclusion;
• held a stage two review panel during which Miss X was able to provide verbal representations, but decided it did not owe a transport duty to Y.
9. The Council also considered its discretionary powers to provide transport to Y in any case due the family’s circumstances at each stage of Miss X’s application. It decided not to award transport on a discretionary basis on this occasion.

Analysis

10. We are not an appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
11. In this case, the Council correctly applied the relevant tests when determining whether to award home to school transport for Y. It determined Y was not an eligible child. It correctly considered its discretionary powers considering the individual circumstances Miss X presented but decided not to provide transport.
12. These are decisions the Council is entitled to make regardless of discretionary decisions made in the past.
13. Consequently, there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman, and we will not investigate Miss X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman