The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s withdrawal of funding for a local bus service. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting its decision.
The complaint
The complainant, Mrs X, complains about the Council’s decision to withdraw funding for a local bus service. She does not believe the Council properly considered the consultation responses from local residents or took into account the evidence available from its own assessments when making its decision. She says the decision will have a significant impact on her and others in the area, in particular elderly and vulnerable residents and those with disabilities.
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 Mrs X’s representative, Miss Y, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
I shared my draft decision with Miss Y and considered her comments.
My assessment
We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
The Council consulted local residents and prepared reports to consider the impact of withdrawing funding for three bus routes in its area. Miss X questions the adequacy of its consultation but we need not consider in detail whether the Council should have consulted differently, how the Council weighted the comments it received, or whether it should have given more weight to different options or mitigation measures. The Council had discretion on those points and there is legitimate scope for different opinions on them. The key point for us is that overall, the Council took its decision knowing of its legal duties towards residents including older people and those with disabilities and other protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
The Council accepted the bus routes were important for residents and that the impact of their withdrawal would be significant. However it felt the other options available- maintaining the services as they are or making some changes to reduce the frequency of services and improve efficiency- were not viable. This is primarily due to the financial impact of the service and the alternative options within the context of the Council’s wider financial difficulties, having effectively declared bankruptcy in late 2022.
Mrs X and Miss Y, along with several other residents, believe the Council cannot have properly considered the matter, given the impact it accepts the decision would have on elderly and other vulnerable residents. But the evidence of the Council’s decision-making processes and its report to the Cabinet show this impact was considered in detail at every stage.
The fact the decision would significantly impact residents, including those with protected characteristics, is not itself evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.
We can only look to see the Council has considered the impact of its decisions and its public sector equality duty and it has clearly done so in this case. If Mrs X, Miss Y or anyone else believes the decision breaches the Equality Act 2010 they may wish to take legal advice as only the courts can rule on this point.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman