The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the provision of free to home to school transport. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse free home to school transport for her child, Y.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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)) We do not start 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X complains about the refusal of the Council to provide free school transport for her child, Y. She said her other child had been awarded free transport to the same school.
Local authorities must make suitable home to school travel arrangements as it considers necessary for ‘eligible children’ of compulsory school age to attend their ‘qualifying school’. The travel arrangements must be made and provided free of charge. The relevant qualifying school is the nearest school with places available that provides education appropriate to the age, ability and aptitude of the child, and any special educational needs the child may have.
The Council’s policy says it will provide free transport for a child under 8 where the child attends their nearest available primary school and where they live more than 2 miles away from the school.
The Council rejected Ms X’s application because Y does not go to the nearest available qualifying school. It recognised that Ms X’s other child did receive free transport but said each case is looked at separately. An appeal panel considered the case and agreed with the Council’s decision to refuse the application. It advised of the other options available to Ms X including a personal budget and a vacant seat scheme.
Records show the Council and appeals panel considered all the information available to it. Ms X was also able to attend the appeal to present evidence.
While Ms X remains unhappy with the decision taken by the Council, 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 correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making. The Council considered Ms X’s application in line with its policy.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman