Summary: There was no fault in how the Council decided the level of school travel support to offer Miss B’s daughter. There was no fault in the process the Council followed when making the decision, so we have no power the question the decision itself.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Miss B, complains about the Council’s arrangements for her daughter, C, to get to and from school.
2. Miss B complains that the Council kept changing its mind about what travel support to offer C. This included, she says, asking her to accompany C in a taxi, then offering a passenger assistant shared with one other child, then sending different drivers in different cars.
3. Miss B says this was all extremely disruptive to C’s routine, as she is autistic and needs consistency. She says this inconsistency started to lead to C refusing to wear a seatbelt or remain seated in the vehicle taking her to school.
4. Miss B says she wants the Council to arrange more suitable transport for C.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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 a council made its decision. If there was no fault in how the council made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered:
• Information from Miss B and the Council.
• Relevant parts of the Education Act 1996.
• The Council’s travel support policy.
8. Miss B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s responsibilities

Education Act 1996

9. Councils must make suitable home to school travel arrangements for ‘eligible children’ of compulsory school age to attend their ‘qualifying school’. The relevant qualifying school is the nearest school with places available that provides education appropriate to the age, ability and aptitude of the child, and any special educational needs the child may have. (Section 508B and Schedule 35B)
10. A child begins to be of compulsory school age at the age of 5. (Section 8)

The Council’s travel support policy

11. The Council may provide transport to children with special educational needs who are under 5 attending reception class in exceptional circumstances. This includes children who turn 5 later on in the same academic school year.
12. This service is not automatically available. Cases will be assessed on an individual basis.
13. There are currently no charges for those accessing this service.

What happened

Pre-school

14. In February 2023 – when C was still three years old – the Council offered her transport assistance so she could get to and from pre-school at a special school.
15. The Council told Miss B that it could not offer one-to-one support for C in the taxi. It said it would provide a passenger assistant, but the assistant would be shared between the children in the vehicle.
16. Miss B agreed to this. However, in early March, the Council told her it had changed its mind. It said that, due to C’s age, its transport provider wanted her to be accompanied by a parent. This arrangement would continue until September, when C – by that point aged four – would be accompanied by a shared passenger assistant.
17. When Miss B challenged this decision, the Council told her it did not provide travel support to three-year-olds as standard, and it considered its offer to be suitable. It said that, if Miss B refused the offer, it would be her responsibility to make other arrangements.
18. Miss B asked the Council if she could get mileage reimbursement if she drove C to school herself. The Council told her the right to mileage reimbursement was not automatic if the Council had already made a suitable transport offer. However, it said it would consider such any request she made.

Reception

19. In August 2023, Miss B asked the Council what C’s travel arrangements would be when she started Reception at the same special school the following month.
20. Miss B told the Council that C now refused to wear a seatbelt, so needed one-to-one support and as short a journey as possible. She also said a different taxi and driver had turned up every day at the end of the previous term and C had found this distressing.

21. The Council told Miss B that:
• It had been assured by its transport provider that there would be more consistency with drivers in the future.
• The travel arrangements would remain the same as planned (one passenger assistant shared between three children in the taxi).
• It did not generally provide on-to-one support unless a child had extremely complex needs. C’s needs could be met with the support currently in place.
• If C refused to wear a seatbelt or get in the car seat, then she would not be able to access the transport because of the risk to other people in the car. The only option, if this happened, would be for C’s family to drive C to and from school and receive mileage reimbursement.
• Miss B should contact the Council if she wanted mileage reimbursement.
22. Miss B told the Council that she would not be able to take C to school without another adult in the car. She said C did have complex needs. She asked for more information about the driver, passenger assistant and car.
23. The Council provided Miss B with the information she requested. But it did not change its decision.
24. Miss B then contacted her MP, who passed her concerns onto the Council. The Council told the MP:
• The issues at the end of the previous term had been unavoidable (the driver’s car had broken down so he could not work until it was fixed). But this was no longer a problem.
• Once C’s behaviour had settled, the current offer of travel support (a shared passenger assistant) would be satisfactory for her needs.
• It would consider any an independent travel assessment provided by Miss B, if decided to get one.
• Until that point, if C would not wear a seatbelt or remain seated in the vehicle, she would not be able to access the service.
25. After this, Miss B told the Council that C had not been able to use the transport since the start of term. She asked if the Council would reimburse her if she arranged her own taxi and accompanied C herself.
26. In reply, the Council told Miss B that it would not reimburse her for the use of a different taxi, but could reimburse her for the use of her own car as a short-term measure until C became able to use the taxi again.
27. Miss B applied for mileage reimbursement and the Council agreed this. However, she remains dissatisfied. She says C has a certificate of exemption from compulsory seatbelt use and therefore, if not wearing a seatbelt could pose a risk to other children, the Council should offer one-to-one support to C in a taxi on her own. She feels the Council is discriminating against C because of the nature of her disability.

My findings

28. Although Miss B is unhappy with the travel support in place and believes it unsuitable, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide what support a child should receive.
29. Instead, we must decide whether there was fault in the process the Council followed when making a decision on travel support. If there was no fault, then we cannot question the decision itself.
30. As C is only four years old, the Council does not have a statutory duty to provide travel support to her in the same way as it will when she turns five.
31. However, its policy does say it will provide discretionary (and free) travel support to under-fives who have special educational needs on a case-by-case basis. It has clearly offered C support under this section of its policy.
32. Given that the Council has a power to provide transport to a four-year-old child, not a duty, I would expect it to consider exercising this power by weighing up the child’s needs and properly applying its policy.
33. In C’s case, the Council:
• Considered its powers to provide travel support and, in fact, offered it.
• Made an offer which does not appear obviously unreasonable.
• Considered Miss B’s representations and explained why it would not extend its offer any further (including why it would not allow C into the taxi without a seatbelt on, despite her certificate of exemption from compulsory seatbelt use).
• Allowed Miss B to claim mileage reimbursement when she decided the Council’s travel arrangements were unsuitable.
34. This suggests that there was no fault in how the Council dealt with Miss B’s request for travel support. Consequently, I have no power to question the decision itself, regardless of Miss B’s dissatisfaction.

Back to top

Final decision

35. There was no fault in how the Council decided the level of travel support to offer C.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman