The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide his child with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained about the Council’s decision not to provide his child with free transport to his preferred school.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
What I found
Legislation Councils have a duty to provide free transport to school to ‘eligible’ children. Eligible children include: Children attending the nearest qualifying school to home where the distance to school is more than the statutory walking distance (two miles for children up to the age of eight, and three miles for children aged eight and over).
Children who cannot walk to school, accompanied as necessary, because of the nature of the route.
Children who cannot walk to school because of their special educational needs.
Councils must apply their published policy when deciding entitlement to transport assistance. But they also have the discretion to consider exceptional circumstances. They must have a review or appeal process parents can use to challenge decisions.
What happened Mr X asked the Council to provide his child with free transport to his preferred primary school. The Council refused because there was a closer school to home.
Mr X appealed the Council’s decision. A senior officer considered the appeal at the final stage of the process. The Council said Mr X’s child had been offered a place at a closer school which he had refused. The closer school and Mr X’s preferred school were both under two miles. There was therefore no entitlement to free transport.
Assessment Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decisions. But this is not evidence of fault. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body, and we cannot criticise a properly made decision or intervene to substitute an alternative view. As I explain in paragraph 2, we can only criticise a council’s decision if there was fault in the way it was reached.
The Council has applied its transport policy which reflects the statutory requirements set out in paragraph 5. There is no indication of fault in the way it did this or in how it reached the decision Mr X’s child does not qualify for free transport.
Based on the evidence available, it is unlikely an investigation would find enough fault with the way the Council has acted to question the decisions reached. We will not therefore investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman