The complaint
Miss X complains about the Council’s decision that her daughter does not qualify for free home to school transport.
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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) 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 Miss X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Miss X applied for free school transport for her daughter who is under eight years old.
Under the Council’s policy, under eights qualify for free school transport if they are attending the nearest available and suitable school and the child lives more than two miles from the school.
The Council refused Miss X’s application because she has chosen to send her daughter to a school which is not the nearest suitable school.
Miss X considers the nearest school is not suitable for her daughter because it is a faith school and does not have enough support for children with special educational needs (SEN).
However, the government guidance states a suitable school is a “qualifying school, with places available, that is suitable for the child’s age, ability, aptitude, and any special educational needs they may have. It should also be suitable for the child’s sex. Suitable school does not mean the most suitable school for a child.”
Section 508C of the Education Act 1996 sets out that councils have a discretionary power to provide travel to school for children resident in their area who are not eligible children. However, it is for each council to decide whether and how to exercise their discretionary power. However, they should not have a blanket policy of never providing discretionary travel and should be prepared to consider cases individually.
Miss X appealed the Council’s decision via the stage two appeal panel and provided more information about their circumstances in support of the appeal.
The meeting notes provided by the Council show Miss X spoke in support of her application. The panel considered the extra information Miss X provided but did not uphold the appeal. It was satisfied the application did not meet the eligibility criteria and there were no exceptional grounds to cause it to depart from its policy.
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the way the decision to refuse the application was reached. We are not an appeal body, and it is not our role to question the merits of the Council’s decisions where, as here, there is no sign of fault in the way it was reached. This is a decision it was entitled to make, and it was made in line with the published eligibility criteria which were not met.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman