The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suspension of mileage payments to Mr X for home-to-school transport for his children. The remedy the Council has provided for its error means investigation by us would be unlikely to add to the Council’s own investigation or lead to a recommendation of the remedy Mr X is seeking.
The complaint
Mr X says the Council unlawfully withdrew mileage payments for him to transport his children to school. He says the Council misapplied the relevant criteria and there were further procedural failings. He said an officer wrongly insisted on contact by phone.
Mr X says he was caused stress and financial hardship, and the Council should pay him between £2,100 and £2,500.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended) Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council accepted it made an error by wrongly suspending mileage payments to Mr X in July 2025. All his children attended the same school. In its final response to his complaint, the Council said there had been an error in October 2025 by an officer from outside in the school transport department due to Mr X making an application for transport for all his children. The officer had not appreciated that payment would be due as one child qualified regardless of the entitlements of other siblings.
The Council apologised to X, said the payments due would be backdated, and offered him £50 for his time and trouble in pursuing the matter. Were we to investigate, we would be unlikely to recommend significantly more where a sum due has been made up.
Investigation by us Mr X’s remaining points of complaint would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome. The Council’s advice that one child’s entitlement would cover the journey until the child moved school is correct. The Council was correct to confirm it would then need to assess the potential separate entitlements of other children remaining at the same school, doing so again as any other entitled child moved on. The same would apply to any potential journey to and from another school. In short, it would only need one child to qualify at each separate school for its transport duty to kick in at that school. Any other siblings attending the same school where there was an entitled child could then be transported by a parent in the same vehicle.
We would also be unlikely to find fault in the Council not offering a transport appeal for Mr X’s younger children for 2025-26 as the Council has already conceded the duty for the journey in respect of the entitled child and all the children travel together. The same holds true for any comments about criteria. I note the Council accepted it should have written to Mr X rather than calling him. However, the injustice caused by that is not enough to warrant investigation by us.
Only a court is able to determine lawfulness.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because doing would be unlikely to add to the Council’s own investigation, or to a recommendation of the a financial remedy the a scale Mr X is seeking. Only a court could determine lawfulness.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman