Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council administers school transport applications for children in his village. We do not find fault with how the Council assesses these applications. We find the Council at fault for delays in considering Mr X’s appeal, but we find the Council has already taken sufficient action to address this.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council administers school transport applications for his village. Specifically, Mr X says:
• there was a lack of communication from the Council when it changed its policy on providing school transport;
• the Council misrepresented the national safety guidelines and tried to find alternative safe routes after its decision-making; and
• the Council is claiming a dangerous route to be safe.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a Council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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

What I have and have not considered

6. We cannot usually investigate events that took place more than 12 months before a complaint was brought to our service. We can only exercise discretion to look back further if there are good reasons to do so.
7. Mr X first contacted the Ombudsman in January 2024, meaning anything that took place before January 2023 has been raised late.
8. Mr X first applied for school transport for his son, Y in July 2021 and received the Council’s final decision on his appeals in January 2022. I have seen no good reason why Mr X could not have complained to us about this application sooner, and so I have not exercised discretion to consider it as part of my investigation.
9. Mr X made a new application for school transport for Y in October 2022. However, Mr X did not receive the Council’s final decision on his appeals to the outcome of this until August 2023 and then promptly brought a complaint to us to consider. For this reason, I have exercised discretion to investigate from the time Mr X made his school transport application in October 2022.
10. Any reference below to events that took place prior to October 2022 are for reference only.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered all the information Mr X provided about his complaint. I also considered information received from the Council.
12. Mr X 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

Relevant law

13. Local authorities must make suitable home to school travel arrangements as they consider necessary for ‘eligible children’ of compulsory school age to attend their ‘qualifying school’. The travel arrangements must be made and provided free of charge. 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. ‘Eligible children’ include:
• children living outside ‘statutory walking distance’ from the school (two miles for children under eight, three miles for children aged eight and above);
• children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot reasonably be expected to walk to school because of their special educational needs, disability or mobility problem;
• children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot walk to school because the route is unsafe; and
• children entitled on low-income grounds. (Education Act 1996, 508B(1) and Schedule 35B)
14. A child will not normally be eligible for free travel to school on the grounds of their special educational needs, disability, or mobility problem, or on the grounds that the route is unsafe, if they would be able to walk to school if they were accompanied.
15. A child will not normally be eligible solely because their parent’s work commitments or caring responsibilities mean they are unable to accompany their child themselves. Councils must consider cases where the 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.
16. Where the local authority determines that a child would be able to walk if they were accompanied, the general expectation is that the parent will accompany them or make other suitable arrangements for their journey to and from school. (Department of Education, Travel to school for children of compulsory school age statutory guidance 2023, paragraphs 47 to 52)
17. Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support.
18. The statutory guidance recommends councils adopt the following appeals process:
• Stage 1: review by a senior officer. Within 20 working days of receiving a parent’s written request to appeal the decision, a senior officer reviews the original decision and sends the parent a detailed written notification of the outcome of the review setting out the nature of the decision, how the review was conducted, what was taken into account, the rationale for the decision reached, and how to escalate their case to stage 2; and
• Stage 2: Within 40 working days of receipt of the parent’s request for an independent appeal panel to consider written and verbal representations, a detailed decision is sent setting out: the nature of the decision reached; how the review was conducted; what factors were considered; the rationale for the decision reached; and information about complaining to the Ombudsman. If a parent considers the decision of the independent appeals panel to be flawed on public law grounds, they may appeal for a judicial review.
  (Department of Education, Travel to school for children of compulsory school age statutory guidance 2023, Part 5)

The Council’s policy

19. The Council’s Home to School/College Travel and Transport Policy (the policy) can be found on its website. It explains parents have a legal duty to ensure their children attend school regularly and make any necessary arrangements to facilitate this.
20. The policy sets out who is eligible for assisted travel in line with the Education Act 1996. It says the Council will provide free home to school transport for any child aged eight and above where the shortest walking distance between home and school is over three miles.
21. The policy explains that if a parent believes their child is unable to walk the assessed route safely, accompanied by an adult as necessary, due to the nature of the route, its Safer Travel Team will assess the route. It also explains that if a route previously considered to be unavailable becomes available, transport will no longer be provided to any new applicants for transport assistance.
22. The Council’s policy also sets out how parents can appeal against decisions on their transport applications, and this mirrors the guidance set out above.

What happened

23. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
24. The Council uses a Geographic Information System (GIS) to assess routes. Prior to February 2021, the Council’s team responsible for assessing school transport applications was not aware of a safe walking route from Mr X’s village to School A, which was outside of the Council’s area, and granted free travel in bulk without the need to apply.
25. In February 2021 the Council restructured its School Travel and Assessment Team. As a consequence, assessment of school transport applications became the responsibility of a new team, the Travel and Assessment team who had fuller access to GIS. The Council’s policy did not change at that point, and it says there was no conscious decision to change how applications were reviewed. However, this team became aware of additional routes that were previously thought to be unavailable. From then, it stopped granting free transport to School A in bulk and began telling families they would need to apply.
26. In July 2021, Mr X made an application for travel assistance as his son, Y, was due to start at School A. The Council declined this application in August 2021. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision at stage one but the Council did not overturn its decision and so Mr X asked it to reconsider at stage two. Mr X’s stage two appeal was heard by a panel who decided the Council’s policy had been correctly applied and the decision to refuse transport was correct.
27. During the period between Mr X’s initial application and his appeal hearing, in October 2021, the Council’s Safer Travel Team carried out a Safety of Route Assessment. They considered footpath continuity, dangers of road crossings and collision data from the area and judged the route to be safe and less than three miles long.
28. Mr X made a new application for travel assistance in October 2022. Mr X explained Y was already attending School A and relying on lifts by car from various people. Mr X explained he had other children at a different school and the walking route the Council proposed between his home and School A was not safe. Mr X also said he had concerns about the route by public transport. Mr X confirmed that neither he nor Y had mobility issues.
29. Later that month, the Council wrote to Mr X to explain it had assessed the distance between his home and School A to be less than three miles, so Y was not eligible for free school transport. The Council said Mr X could apply for concessionary travel and invited him to submit a Transport Case Review form if he wished to register an appeal within 20 working days.
30. Mr X appealed to the Council at stage one on 16 November. Mr X said he felt the Council’s decision was incorrect and not in accordance with its travel and transport policy. Mr X agreed the shortest walking route was less than three miles but said it was not safe. Mr X said the route covered steep terrain, was unlit, and prone to getting slippery in winter months.
31. The Council’s Safer Travel Team carried out a new Safety of Route assessment on 30 November. This was done by site visit. The assessment considered footpath continuity, dangers of road crossings and collision data from the area and judged the route to be safe and less than three miles long.
32. The Council responded to Mr X’s stage one appeal on 19 December and apologised for the delay. The Council said that as Mr X had not provided any new evidence or exceptional circumstances to consider since his appeals in 2021, it had nothing more to add. However, the Council explained the walk from Mr X’s home to School A was less than three miles and its Safer Travel Team had assessed this to be a safe route. It also explained that it was not dutybound to consider personal safety issues of a child travelling alone and the overriding expectation was that parents should take responsibility for getting their children to and from school.
33. Mr X emailed the Council to disagree with the outcome of his stage one appeal. Mr X explained he wanted his appeal to be progressed as a group appeal with other affected families from his village and asked the Council not to set a date for the stage two appeal until the group had gathered supporting evidence.
34. In June 2023, independent consultants commissioned by Mr X and the other affected families produced a report on the route from the village to School A. The report said there were three available routes:
• The walking route the council had recommended. The report found this would take up to 60 minutes in normal conditions and potentially 75 minutes in adverse weather. The report found this route to contain steep gradients, overgrown vegetation and challenging terrain, with no illumination. The report said safety on this route was a concern as children would be walking in darkness during winter months and heavy rainfall could create a dangerous surface to walk on. The report recommended the Council remove this route from its consideration as it was unsafe to walk in its current state.
• Public transport. The report found this would require walking along unlit footpaths and crossing a busy road at a timed crossing. The report found this was potentially dangerous due to the temptation to cross the road earlier than the signal to do so due to fear of being late for school. The report said it would not be suitable for a child from the village to travel to School A by existing public transport options.
• Travel by car, which would cover 4.7 miles and 14-25 minutes, depending on traffic. The report found this not to be a viable option due to potential restrictions, such as other children attending different schools and varying start and finish times to account for extracurricular activities.
35. The report concluded with a recommendation for the Council to reinstate the free bus service between the village and School A.
36. On 11 July the Council carried out an Assessment of Route Safety for the public transport route. This assessment considered footpath continuity, dangers of road crossings and collision data from the area and judged the route to be safe. The assessment also considered a section of the road with timed crossings and found there was ample time and space for this to be crossable when vehicles were held at red lights. The Council provided a copy of the assessment to the spokesperson of the group of parents on 11 July, and it was submitted to the panel on 12 July.
37. The panel considered all the evidence from both the Council and Mr X and the other parents and unanimously decided that the shortest walking route put forward by the Council was deemed safe and public transport was available and accessible as an alternative route. The panel further unanimously determined that the Council’s policy had been correctly and impartially applied when reviewing this case. The Council wrote to Mr X on 2 August to provide the panel’s decision and its reasons for this.
38. The Council has told us that prior to restructuring the Travel and Assessment Team, there was a backlog of appeals, which coincided with the delay Mr X experienced in his stage one appeal. However, since December 2022, more than 99% of appeals have been heard within the statutory timescales.
39. In response to a draft of this decision, Mr X said he feels this situation represents a change in policy without notification which has created a real challenge for himself and his family as they were did not plan for school without transport provision. Mr X said the Council has been inconsistent in its assessments, he does not believe the walking routes are safe and the Council’s decision-making was driven by cost saving at the expense of child safety.

Analysis

40. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means it is not our role to take a second look at a decision not to provide school transport to decide if it was right or wrong. We are also not here to substitute the Council’s opinion for our own when it comes to matters such as what is a safe walking route to school.
41. Instead, we look at the processes a council followed to make its decisions. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, and they were in line with the relevant law and guidance, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with it.
42. The Council is entitled to restructure its internal departments as it sees fit and I could not find it at fault for changing who is responsible for making decisions on school transport applications. I have looked at a copy of the Council’s policy prior to and after the restructure and I can see no change in how it assesses applications. Changing which team is responsible for decisions does not constitute a change of policy and would not demand the same consultation as changing the policy would. I do not find the Council at fault here.
43. Having compared the relevant sections of the Council’s policy with the relevant sections of the government guidance, I find no fault with how it is written. The Council’s policy sets out the key elements of the guidance, often using the same wording, and mirrors the processes set out. I do not find the Council at fault here.
44. All councils have discretion to provide free school transport beyond what is statutorily expected of them if they wish to, and the Council did that in previous years. However, that did not set a precedent for all future years and the Council was free to stop exercising its discretion and withdraw free school transport at any time. I cannot find the Council at fault for doing so.
45. The Council responded promptly to Mr X’s application in October 2022, and explained Y was not eligible for free home to school transport because his school was within the statutory walking distances. I do not find the Council at fault here as it correctly applied the guidance and the Council’s policy as it is written when making its decision. I could not find fault with the Council’s decision-making process simply because a previous team exercised its discretion to provide free school transport.
46. Mr X emailed the Council to appeal against its initial decision on 15 November 2022. The Council then had 20 working days to respond to Mr X’s appeal, meaning by 13 December 2022. The Council did not respond to Mr X’s appeal until 19 December 2022, around a week late. this is fault. However, the Council has already apologised for the delay, and I find this is suitable action to address the injustice the delay would have caused.
47. As Mr X had questioned the safety of the walking route, the Council carried out a new safety of route assessment. This was done in person and considered whether a child could walk the route in reasonable safety if accompanied by an adult. I do not find fault with the Council’s decision-making process here. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the outcome of the assessment, but it is not my role to question this where the right process has been followed.
48. When the Council responded to Mr X’s stage one appeal, it explained what it had considered and how it had determined Y was not eligible for free home to school transport in line with its policy and the guidance. It also set out what route it had considered and how it had considered if there were exceptional circumstances meaning it would not be reasonable for Y to use that route if accompanied by an adult. The Council correctly followed the guidance and its own policy and I do not find fault with its decision-making process here.
49. The Council agreed to consider Mr X’s appeal at stage two, as a group appeal with other parents in his village. While the stage two panel hearing did not take place for several months, this delay was at Mr X’s request in order to gather supporting evidence for his case. I do not find the Council at fault for delays.
50. During this period the Council also carried out further safety of route assessments to consider if the bus route could reasonably be considered safe for a child to take if accompanied by an adult. Again, this was done in person and considered the relevant criteria according to the guidance. I do not find fault with the Council’s decision-making process.
51. Having looked through the minutes of the panel hearing, and the outcome letter explaining how it reached its decision, I am satisfied the panel considered all the submissions and points made by both the Council and Mr X. This included the independent report Mr X provided suggesting the Council continue to run a free bus between the village and School A. It is not my role to say how much weight the panel should give to any particular argument or submission. The panel considered everything it was presented with, including how the Council assessed the safety of the walking route and I do not find fault with its decision-making process.

Back to top

Final decision

52. I find the Council at fault for delays in the process of dealing with Mr X’s stage one appeal however I find it has already taken suitable action to address the injustice caused. I do not find fault with how the Council considered Mr X’s initial application or subsequent appeals. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman