Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly assess her son (Y’s) application for school transport assistance and unreasonably rejected the appeal of this. The Council considered Y’s application and appeal in line with the relevant law and policies without fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council has failed to properly assess her son (Y’s) application for school transport assistance and unreasonably rejected the appeal of this. Ms X says his education and welfare are suffering because of this which is causing them distress and frustration.

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 spoke to Ms X about her complaint and considered information she provided.
5. I considered information from the Council.
6. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on this draft decision. I considered comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

7. 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)

8. Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support.

The Council’s School Transport Policy

9. The Council’s School Transport Policy says:
• Pupils of secondary school age 11–16 are entitled to free transport to their nearest suitable school if that school is 3 miles or more from home.
• Pupils of secondary school age from low-income families are entitled to free transport if the school is between 2 and 6 miles and there are not 3 or more suitable nearer schools.
• Parents/carers have the right to express a preference for a school other than the nearest suitable or catchment school. This is known as a ‘preferred school’.
• Pupils aged 8–16 attending a preferred school will be eligible for free transport if that school is the nearest available school and is 3 miles or more from home.
• Transport and Travel Services consider exceptional circumstances on a case-by-case basis.
10. Suitable school is defined as the nearest qualifying school to the family home with places available that provides education appropriate to the age, ability and aptitude of the child, and any special educational needs that the child may have.
11. The Council’s appeal process says:

• Parents/carers have 20 working days from receipt of the home to school transport decision to make a written request asking for a stage one review of the decision. Within 20 working days of receipt of the written request a senior officer will review the original decision and send the parent/carer a detailed written notification of the outcome of the review.
• A parent/carer has 20 working days from receipt of the local authority’s stage one written decision notification to make a written request for their case to be taken to stage two of the review process.
• Stage two appeals will be considered within 40 working days of receipt. The independent appeal panel will consider both written and verbal representations from both parent/carer and officers involved in the case. A detailed written notification of the outcome will be sent to the parent/carer within five working days of the appeal panel.

What happened

12. Ms X has two children, Y and Z who attend a mainstream secondary school (school A) 12 miles away from their home. Ms X made an application for school travel assistance for both Y and Z.
13. In April 2024, the Council wrote to Ms X to tell her she did not qualify for travel assistance as Y and Z were not attending the nearest or catchment school to their home address. Therefore, they were not attending their qualifying school and were not eligible for free travel.
14. The same month Ms X appealed the decision. She wrote to the Council to say they were a low-income family and the school they were attending was their qualifying school as it was the only available suitable school.
15. In May 2024, the Council carried out a stage one review of its decision. The Council upheld the original decision for Y because he is not attending the catchment or closest available school. It referred Mrs X to its school transport policy. The Council also checked with the school admissions team and it found there were places in Y’s year group in a school 1.2 miles away from his home (school B). The Council did not uphold the original decision for Z and it issued her with a bus pass. This was because there were no places in her year group at any nearer schools.
16. In May 2024, Ms X requested the Council carry out a stage two review. Ms X said school A is the nearest suitable school. Ms X said Y has autism, he receives support at school A and school B could not meet his needs. Y does not have a formal diagnosis or an Education Health and Care Plan in place.
17. In June 2024, the Transport Review Panel met to consider the review request which Ms X attended and made verbal representations. The outcome of the panel was to uphold the original decision. It reiterated the reasons outlined in the stage one review and said there was no evidence school B could not meet Y’s needs. The panel considered whether there were any exceptional circumstances in this case in relation to The Home to School Transport Policy and they agreed that there were not.
18. Ms X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of the matter and complained to us.
19. Following the complaint to us, Ms X told us she has new evidence to support Y’s case as he has been accepted for speech therapy and a neurodevelopment assessment.

My findings

Council’s consideration of Y’s school transport application

20. The Council considered Y’s school transport application for school A in April 2024. The Education Act 1996 says 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’. A 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. Children aged eight and above must live more than three miles away from their qualifying school to be eligible. The Council’s school transport policy reflects this legislation. The Council rejected the school transport application as school A was a preferred school rather than a qualifying school because it was not Y’s nearest or catchment school. The Council considered relevant legislation and its own policy and decided Y did not meet the criteria for school transport assistance. That is not fault.

Council’s stage one review

21. Ms X appealed the decision because they were a low-income family and says school A was the only available suitable school. The Council carried out a stage one review and identified there were places in Y’s year group in school B. The Council considered this to be Y’s qualifying school as it was 1.2 miles away from his home. The Council’s school transport policy says pupils of secondary school age from low-income families are entitled to free transport if the school is between 2 and 6 miles and there are not 3 or more suitable nearer schools. However, this would not apply as school A was 12 miles away from Y’s home. The Council considered Ms X’s appeal, made enquiries and considered the relevant law and policies. It decided Y did not meet the criteria for school transport assistance and upheld the original decision. That is not fault.

Council’s stage two review

22. Ms X requested a stage two review as she says school B could not meet Y’s needs. She says Y has autism and receives support at school A. Y does not have a formal diagnosis or an Education Health and Care Plan in place. The Council’s policy says Transport and Travel Services consider exceptional circumstances on a case-by-case basis. The Council’s review panel said there was no evidence school B could not meet his needs. It also did not consider there to be any exceptional circumstances. The Council considered Ms X’s review request, evidence she provided, the Council’s policy and all other information it had available. It decided Y did not meet the criteria and upheld the original decision. That is not fault.
23. Since the stage 2 review, Y has been accepted for speech therapy and a neurodevelopment assessment. Ms X can re-apply for school transport assistance if she feels there has been a change of circumstances and has new evidence for the Council to consider.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I completed this investigation and found no fault with the Council’s actions.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman