Summary: Mrs M complains about the Council’s decision her daughter G is no longer entitled to a personal travel budget for home to school transport. The evidence shows the Council properly considered Mrs M’s application and appeals. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs M complains about the Council’s decision her daughter G is no longer entitled to a personal travel budget for home to school transport.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

4. I have considered information provided by Mrs M and the Council, including all the papers from Mrs M’s application and appeals. I invited Mrs M and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs M’s daughter, G, attends a local secondary school. G has special educational needs. She is unable to travel to school by herself. Until July 2023, the Council provided a personal travel budget and Mrs M took G to school by car.
6. The Council decided to re-assess G’s eligibility for transport assistance in autumn 2022 and asked Mrs M to re-apply.
7. Mrs M completed the Council’s online school travel assessment form for children with special educational needs and disabilities on 17 October 2022.
8. The Council wrote to Mrs M on 15 December 2022 to say it had decided G was not eligible for transport. The Council said the school was less than three miles from Mrs M’s home, so the Council was not under a duty to provide transport. The Council said it was a parent’s responsibility to accompany G to school if necessary.
9. On 20 December 2022, Mrs M asked for a review of the Council’s decision (stage 1 of the appeal process). She said the school was more than three miles from home, and her medical condition meant she could not accompany G on public transport.
10. The Council replied on 25 August 2023. The Council confirmed it would not provide transport because the school was less than three miles from Mrs M’s home. The Council said the evidence suggested Mrs M was able to make alternative arrangements to get G to school.
11. On 29 August 2023, Mrs M appealed the Council’s decision (stage 2 of the appeal process). She said the school was more than three miles from home. She explained G cannot travel independently, and she cannot accompany her on public transport due to her medical condition. She sent screenshots of the route and medical letters.
12. The Council replied on 29 November 2023. The Council said the school was less than three miles from Mrs M’s home, Mrs M’s medical condition was “not significant enough to prevent the responsibility of being a parent”, and suggested the family could take G to school by car as they did for another child.
13. Unhappy with the Council’s response, Mrs M complained to the Ombudsman. She wants the Council to continue to pay the personal travel budget to help with the cost of taking G to school by car.

Home to school transport

14. Councils have a duty to provide free home to school transport for eligible children to qualifying schools. (Education Act 1996, section 508B)
15. Various categories of eligible children are defined in Schedule 35B of the Education Act 1996.
16. Children are eligible for transport if they:
• live beyond walking distance of their nearest suitable school (two miles for a pupil under 8 or three miles for a pupil over 8);
• live within walking distance of the school, but cannot be expected to walk because of their special educational needs or disability; or
• live within walking distance of the school, but cannot be expected to walk because of the nature of the route.
17. The Council can pay travel expenses for an eligible child instead of providing transport if the parent agrees.
18. The Government has issued statutory guidance which councils must follow unless they have good reason. (Travel to school for children of compulsory school age. Statutory guidance for local authorities issued by the Department for Education in June 2023)

Mrs M’s application

19. The Council asked Mrs M to complete the online school travel assessment form for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Her answers describe the difficulties G would face travelling independently. Mrs M said G is able to walk short distances if she is accompanied. Mrs M mentioned her own medical condition which she said prevented her accompanying G on the bus.

The Council’s decision

20. The Council’s decision letter says the Council carefully considered the information Mrs M provided. The letter is, however, very short. It looks like a standard rejection letter.
21. The Council decided G lives within walking distance of her school. The letter does not explain how the Council reached this decision. It might be helpful to say how the Council measured the distance and which route it proposes.
22. It appears the Council decided G’s special educational needs and disability do not prevent her from walking to school, accompanied by an adult if necessary. I note the form Mrs M completed only asked whether she could walk for 15 minutes or half a mile.
23. The Council’s letter says it is a parent’s responsibility to accompany a child or to make arrangements for their child to be accompanied.
24. Government guidance says councils should not have a blanket policy that they will never arrange free travel for a child who would be able to walk to school if accompanied. Councils must consider cases where a parent says there are good reasons why they are unable to accompany their child, or make other suitable arrangements for their journey, and make a decision on the basis of the circumstances of each case.
25. The letter does not say how the Council considered whether Mrs M could accompany G, or make other suitable arrangements.
26. The result is that I cannot tell from the decision letter whether the Council properly considered Mrs M’s application. The letter appears to assume that G can walk and that Mrs M can either accompany her or make other suitable arrangements.

Mrs M’s appeals

27. Mrs M appealed because she believes the journey is more than three miles. In her second appeal, she provided more information about her medical condition which she says means she cannot accompany G by bus.
28. The Council considered Mrs M’s information but decided not to provide transport because the journey was less than three miles and Mrs M was able to make other suitable arrangements to ensure G was accompanied to school.
29. I think Mrs M was measuring the journey by car, whereas the Council was measuring the journey on foot. This confusion might have been avoided if the Council had explained the route it proposed. I do not know the Borough, but it appears the walking route may use the Brent River Park Walk.
30. Having decided G lives within walking distance of the school and could walk if accompanied, the Council is entitled to conclude Mrs M can make other suitable arrangements for G’s journey to school. But it needs to demonstrate it has made its decision based on the circumstances of the case and not applied a blanket policy.
31. The Council said the evidence showed parents are able to make travel arrangements (at stage 1) and Mrs M could take G by car as she does for G’s sibling (at stage 2). These are valid reasons, but they should have informed the Council’s original decision.

Conclusion

32. I do not decide whether the Council should provide transport assistance for G. This is the Council’s job. My role is to check the Council made its decision properly. I check the Council followed relevant legislation, government guidance and council policies, and that has taken all relevant information into account.
33. The evidence satisfies me it has. There are no grounds for me to question the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have ended my investigation. The evidence satisfies me the Council properly considered Mrs M’s transport application and appeals. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman