Decision Report 201303605

Summary

A firm of solicitors complained on behalf of their clients (Mr and Mrs A) that the council did not act reasonably and correctly when they withdrew school transport. The council had introduced a revised home to school travel policy, in line with national guidelines, which meant that Mr and Mrs A's children no longer qualified for free transport to school. They also said that proper procedures had not been followed when the council dealt with the case and the appeal. Mr and Mrs A were told they could not complain as the decision of the sub-committee was final.

Our investigation found that the appeal sub-committee that took the decision did not have full, accurate and relevant information about the route in question. Additionally, as there was no statutory right of appeal, Mr and Mrs A should have been signposted to us, as they were entitled to an independent review of their concerns. We upheld both complaints and made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their decision about the provision of transport in this case;
• review their policy wording to reflect advice on signposting for internal appeals procedures; and
• apologise for not signposting to SPSO at the end of the appeal process in this case.

Following a review, this report was changed on 25 February 2015. The full revised version of the report is available below.

Case:              201303605: Comhairle nan Eilean Siar

Sector:           local government

Subject:         school transport

Outcome:       some upheld, recommendations

Summary

A firm of solicitors complained on behalf of their clients (Mr and Mrs A) that the council did not act reasonably and correctly when they withdrew school transport. The council had introduced a revised home to school travel policy, in line with national guidelines, which meant that Mr and Mrs A's children no longer qualified for free transport to school. They also said that proper procedures had not been followed when the council dealt with the case and the appeal. Mr and Mrs A were told they could not complain as the decision of the sub-committee was final.

Our investigation found that the appeal sub-committee applied the revised policy correctly in considering Mr and Mrs A's appeal. We did not uphold the first complaint although we made two recommendations about how the clarity of the process could be improved. However, as there was no statutory right of appeal, Mr and Mrs A should have been signposted to us, as they were entitled to an independent review of their concerns and we upheld the complaint that the council failed to follow proper procedures in dealing with the case and subsequent appeal and made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their policy wording to reflect advice on signposting for internal appeals procedures;
• apologise for not signposting to SPSO at the end of the appeal process in this case;
• amend the appeal application form to include a section for parents to complete detailing why they are not able to act as an accompanying adult/meet the parental responsibilities outlined at Paragraph 6.1 of the home to school transport policy; and
• give consideration to giving clearer guidance around the statement in the school transport guide for parents that pupils should be accompanied 'until they can confidently and safely walk the route'.