Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to change the pick-up time for his daughter’s transport to college. Or the complaint about the Council’s post-16 transport policy. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refuses to change the pick-up time for his daughter’s transport to college. He also complains the Council’s post-16 transport policy does not comply with legislation.

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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X asked the Council to change the time transport arrives to collect his daughter to take her to college. The Council refused.
7. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision. He sent information in support of his appeal explaining why he wanted the Council to change the collection time for his daughter. He says an earlier pick up is needed to help the family balance their work commitments and his daughter’s needs.
8. The Council considered Mr X’s appeals in line with its published process. An officer refused his appeal at the first stage. The Council’s Education Transport Appeal Panel (the panel) considered Mr X’s appeal at the final stage. The panel considered information from Mr X. The panel decided not to change the collection time for his daughter. The panel’s letter to Mr X explained the decision.
9. We are not a right of further appeal and cannot question decisions which have been properly taken. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it has applied its published policy, considered his appeals, and reached a decision it is entitled to take. The Council has explained its decision.
10. Mr X says the Council’s post-16 travel policy does not follow legislation as it does not sufficiently consider parental needs, lacks enough opportunities for meaningful consultation, and is inflexible.
11. There is no legal duty on councils to provide travel assistance to young people aged over 16. The Statutory Guidance on Post-16 Transport allows councils to set their own arrangements. The Council provides travel assistance to young people between 16 and 19 years old who have special educational needs.
12. The Council policy says its post-16 travel assistance for young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) will be the “most efficient and effective in terms of both sustainability and cost.” It also says:
    “Any transport provision will be at the start and the end of the school/college day. Transport provision cannot be made for bespoke timetabling for individual pupils.”
13. The Ombudsman cannot criticise the outcome of a decision which the Council has made correctly. The evidence shows the appeal panel considered all the information provided before the decision not to change the pick-up time. It was entitled to make this decision in line with its policy and there is no evidence the decision-making process was flawed.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman