The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Dr B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to consider a late appeal for home-to-school transport assistance. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
The complaint
Dr B complains the Council failed to exercise its discretion and consider an appeal she submitted about her child's eligibility for home to school transport. The appeal was submitted after the Council's deadline. Dr B says she delayed submitting the appeal because she was waiting for advice from the school's headteacher and was also travelling at the time. She says her child cannot safely walk to school or use public transport because of their support needs. Dr B says the Council's decision has caused significant stress and worry. She wants the Council to consider her appeal based on her child's needs rather than the time it was submitted.
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 Dr B and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council's published home to school transport policy reflects the statutory guidance. The Council’s policy said an appeal should be submitted within 20 working days of its decision to refuse the application. It also stated the Council will not accept appeals submitted outside that timescale.
Although the Council has discretion to accept a late appeal, Dr B did not explain in her appeal submission why it was late. While the appeal referred to the headteacher supporting the application, it did not explain that Dr B had been waiting for information or advice from the headteacher before submitting it. The explanation Dr B has since provided to us was therefore not information available to the Council when it decided not to accept the appeal. In these circumstances, we are unlikely to find enough evidence of fault in the Council's decision to refuse the late appeal.
The Council also reminded Dr B she can submit a new application 12 months after the original refusal, or sooner if there is a relevant change in circumstances.
Final decision
We will not investigate Dr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman