Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application and appeal for school transport for his daughter. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains that the Council was at fault in refusing his application and appeal for school transport for his daughter.

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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s daughter has special educational needs and an Education Health and Care plan. Before she was 16, she qualified for school transport assistance. Mr X’s complaint concerns his application for discretionary post-16 school transport.
6. Mr X complains that the Council has failed to properly consider his daughter’s needs and circumstances. Specifically, he says it has not taken account of a letter from his daughter’s school and supporting evidence from Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services.
7. It is not for the Ombudsman to take a view on whether Mr X’s daughter should be awarded discretionary school transport. That is a matter for the Council. The question for the Ombudsman is whether there is evidence of significant fault in the way it considered the matter, and whether that had a demonstrable effect on the outcome. There is no such evidence.
8. Councils must provide a route by which applicants may challenge adverse decisions on school transport applications. The Council does so by way of a two-stage appeal process. Mr X has completed this process.
9. The correspondence Mr X has provided shows that he was able to make written and verbal representations to the appeal panel at the final stage of the procedure. This was his opportunity to make his case, and to draw the appeal panel’s attention to evidence submitted in its support. The decision letter shows that he did so. That being the case, the weight given to the evidence was a matter for the professional judgment of the panel.
10. The panel’s decision and the reasons for it are properly set out and the decision itself is defensible in the circumstances of the case. Mr X disagrees with the decision but there is no evidence of fault in the way the panel members used their judgement. That being the case, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the decision or intervene to substitute an alternative view.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr 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