The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Mr and Mrs X’s application for free home-to-school transport for their child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
Mr and Mrs X complain the Council did not properly assess the distance and safety of the walking route to their child, Y’s school before refusing their application for free home-to-school transport. They want the Council to reassess the distance and safety of the walking route.
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, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr and Mrs X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr and Mrs X applied for free home-to-school transport for their child. They say the Council did not properly assess the walking route because it did not start at their home and was unsafe. Mrs X also says that she would have to give up her job to accompany Y. They applied for travel support and provided supporting evidence.
Councils have a duty to provide free home-to-school transport for legally eligible children. Y does not meet any of the legal grounds for free transport.
The Council can also provide free transport for children who are not automatically legally eligible, but who qualify under the Council’s home-to-school transport policy. The part of the Council’s policy relevant to Y says a child must be attending the nearest suitable school. The child must also live more than three miles from the school by a safe walking route.
The Council considered Mr and Mrs X’s application and supporting evidence. It refused their application because the shortest available walking route to Y’s school is less than 3 miles.
Mr and Mrs X appealed the decision at stage one and two of the Council’s appeals process. The Council’s appeal panel upheld the decision, saying the pedestrian route was correctly assessed, and the walking route was not considered to be unsuitable. It also said that the Council’s policy was to take measurements from where a property meets the highway.
.We will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely that we would find fault. We do not act as an appeal body and can only consider if there was fault in the way the Council made the decision.
The appeal panel’s notes show the panel considered the safety of the pedestrian route. The panel also considered the distance from the highway to Mr and Mrs X’s property and took account of the Council’s school transport policy. The panel explained the evidence supplied was not sufficient to award support. The Council properly considered each point in its policy and although Mr and Mrs X disagree with the decision, this is not evidence of fault in the way it was made.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman