The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council has refused to provide his children with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council incorrectly refused free transport to school for his children. He says the Council failed to consider whether their route to school was safe and instead focused on whether the relevant Council policy was correctly applied. Mr X says this has caused him and his children stress, anxiety and impacted his children’s mental health. He wants the application reconsidered.
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 Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X asked the Council to provide home to school transport for his children. The Council rejected Mr X’s application stating the school was not one of the three nearest suitable schools to their home so did not qualify for assistance in line with Council’s policy.
Councils must apply their transport policy when deciding entitlement to school transport. But they also have the discretion to consider exceptional circumstances. They must have a review or appeal process for parents to challenge decisions about transport entitlement and arrangements.
Mr X did not agree with the Council’s decision and appealed through the Council’s two stage appeal process stating the route to school was outside of the statutory walking distance and unsafe for his children to travel on their own.
A panel of elected members considered Mr X’s appeal at the final stage of the Council’s appeals process. The panel considered information from Mr X and the Council. The panel decided the Council had properly applied its published policy. Because Mr X’s children were not attending the nearest suitable school there was no entitlement to free transport. Mr X informed the panel he did not wish to move his children to a nearer school. The fact the journey to school was unsafe was not therefore relevant. The panel decided not to make an exception and refused Mr X’s appeal.
Mr X is disappointed with the panel’s decision. But the Ombudsman is not a right of further appeal. We cannot question decisions where the proper process has been followed and if there were no flaws in the Council’s decision-making.
In this case, the Council correctly applied the law and its policy when it rejected Mr X’s appeal. The school Mr X’s children attends is not the closest to his home and so there is no legal entitlement to transport. When a child does not attend the nearest suitable school, the safety of the route or otherwise is irrelevant to the issue of eligibility.
There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in how it considered Mr X’s case to warrant our involvement and so we will not investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation by us.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman