The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application and appeal for school transport because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
The complaint
Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her 2025 application and appeal for home to school transport for her children.
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 we 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
I have carefully considered everything Ms X said, although I have not included every detail here. I have included as few details as possible to ensure the anonymity of Ms X and her children.
The Council refused Ms X’s application for home to school transport because her children do not attend the nearest suitable school. The Council said the children would have been offered places at their nearest school if Ms X had applied.
Ms X appealed the Council’s decision. She challenged the Council’s decision on a number of grounds, including the changes to the Council’s policy from catchment schools to nearest schools, the distance measurements, and the availability of places at the nearest school on national offer day.
Unhappy with the Council’s decision following her appeal, Ms X complained to us.
We are not another appeal. We do not decide whether the Council should provide transport for Ms X’s children. Our role is to check the Council made its decision properly.
There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation by us.
When Ms X applied for school places, she listed her preferred school as her first choice and the nearest school as her second choice. She secured places for her children at her preferred school.
Before her appeal, Ms X contacted the nearest school to ask how many places remained available after all the places had been allocated on national offer day. The school said it had only one place available. Ms X used this information in her appeal to argue that the nearest school could not accommodate both her children.
The number of unfilled places on national offer day is not, in fact, relevant.
Application data shows the school received 170 first choice applications for 210 places. If Ms X had listed the school as her first preference when she applied for places, her children would have secured places. The school could have accommodated another 40 first choice applications at the time.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman