The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to charge £600 for post-16 school transport for his child. There is not enough evidence of fault in how a transport panel considered Mr X's appeal against the original decision to warrant investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complained that the Council did not continue to provide free home-to-school transport for his child on entering post-16 education. He said a court ruling had stated the child’s school transport should always be free of charge, and that he had a low income and could not afford the sum charged.
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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Councils do not have to provide free home-to-school transport for children after the last Friday in June in the school year in which they reach age 16, though they have discretion to do so.
We may ask a council to arrange a fresh transport appeal if we think the original appeal was faulty. But we cannot simply disagree with a decision we do not like if it was reached properly.
In this case, the clerk’s notes of the virtual appeal hearing show the panel members considered the case Mr X forward that he could not pay a transport contribution of £600 per year due to low income. It decided he did not qualify on income grounds. The evidence he provided to the Council would have allowed it to reach that view. The panel also stated Mr X had provided no evidence of a court order. I have not seen any court order or any evidence one was supplied to the panel. The clerk’s notes also show the panel considered whether to use its discretion to lower the contribution amount to £300 per year or another sum, before deciding not to. Were we to investigate, it is unlikely we would find fault in the way the panel considered Mr X’s appeal.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a finding of fault in the way the panel considered Mr X’s appeal.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman