Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about post-16 college transport for Mr X’s daughter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the post-16 transport to college the Council provides his daughter (Y) who has special educational needs and an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). Mr X complained Y often had to wait up to 90 minutes at the end of the day for her transport to arrive. Mr X said this was too long and wanted the Council to provide Y with transport once her college day had ended.

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council provides Mr X’s daughter with transport to and from college. For students over the age of 19, the Council’s broad duty is to arrange the transport it considers necessary for the student to undertake further education or training.
7. The Council’s policy says that it will only normally provide transport at the start and end of the day. The policy says students may have to wait for transport unless there are exceptional circumstances warranting bespoke transport.
8. Mr X asked the Council to provide his daughter with transport at the end of her college day. Mr X said there were days when she had to wait up to 90 minutes for transport. Mr X said this was unfair and was affecting her mental health.
9. An independent panel considered Mr X’s appeal at the second stage of the Council’s appeals process. The panel considered information presented by the Council and in support of Y’s appeal. This included the Council’s policy, the original and stage 1 decisions, the cost of bespoke transport, and information sent by Y’s parents. The Council considered the information presented and decided the application and stage 1 appeal had been correctly dealt with, in line with the Council’s policy. The panel decided there were not enough grounds to provide bespoke transport and refused the appeal.
10. Mr X has questioned the cost of bespoke transport provided, and if the panel properly considered information about the family’s wider situation and why different transport was needed
11. 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 someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
12. The Council’s original decision to offer a place on existing transport was in line with its published policy. Y’s parents had the chance to appeal this decision, and the Council considered the appeals via its published process. Y’s parents had the chance to present their case, and the panel considered the information presented.
13. It is not for us to question the cost of bespoke transport provided – rather if the panel properly considered the information presented. The evidence shows this was not a key factor in the panel’s decision, but it was considered – as we would expect. The evidence shows the panel considered all the information presented, but decided there were not enough grounds to deviate from the standard offer of shared transport. That is a decision the panel was entitled to take. The panel’s letter explained its decision.
14. While I understand Mr X is disappointed with the Council’s decision there is not enough evidence of fault for us to become involved.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman