The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to offer Mr X a personal transport budget rather than a taxi to travel to college. The Council acted properly by considering the evidence presented and could decide the budget and independent travel training were sufficient to meet his need. There is not enough of evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement.
The complaint
Miss X complained on behalf of her adult son, Mr X, that the Council wrongly decided his transport need to college did not require the provision of a taxi.
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 how the organisation made its decision, 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.
My assessment
The records of the transport appeals process show the Council decided that Mr X did not need taxi transport to college. It instead decided that he could travel with the aid of a personal transport budget if training was provided.
The records show that the Council took account of Mr X’s EHC Plan, quoting it and taking the view it did not mean Mr X needed taxi transport. The Council was entitled to reach that view as it considered the evidence put forward. I am not entitled to substitute another view unless there was fault in the process. There was not. That Miss X disagrees with the Council’s opinion is not evidence of fault in its process.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman