Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to award his child, Y, a bus pass instead of a council-organised taxi service when he applied for home to school transport support for Y. There was fault with how the Council considered the school transport support application and appeal in Y’s case. This caused injustice to Mr X. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X. It will also carry out a fresh home to school transport appeal.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to award his child, Y, a bus pass instead of a council-organised taxi service when he applied for home to school transport support for Y.
2. Mr X said the bus pass was not a suitable school transport arrangement to meet Y’s medical and special educational needs. As a result, Mr X said the matter caused distress, inconvenience, financial loss and financial strain to his family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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 investigated

5. I investigated matters from March 2024 to August 2024. This covers the period from when Mr X submitted a home to school transport support application to the Council to when he made a complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I discussed the complaint with Mr X. I also considered the information Mr X and the Council provided about this complaint.
7. I sent Mr X and the Council a copy of my draft decision and I considered all the comments received before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Education, Health and Care Plan

8. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This document sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them and names the school the child will attend.

Home to school transport

9. 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)

10. Statutory guidance says councils must ensure the travel arrangements they make take account of the needs of the child concerned. The arrangements should enable the child to travel in reasonable safety and comfort, and without undue stress, strain or difficulty, so that wherever possible they arrive at school ready to learn.
11. Where the council 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 2024)
12. Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support.

Personal transport budget (PTB)

13. A PTB is an alternative to Council organised transport. It is a payment made directly to families giving them the freedom and flexibility to make transport arrangements that suit them. The amount of the payment is based on the distance between their home and school.

Council’s Home to School Transport Policy

14. There are four categories the Council considers in determining whether children of compulsory school age are eligible for free transport support. These categories are distance, low-income families, unsafe walking route and special educational needs or disability.
15. The Council will determine what type of transport arrangement is appropriate in each case, by taking account of its legal obligations, the needs of the applicant, safety considerations, the best use of the Council’s resources, any expressed preference and any other relevant matter.
16. The types of transport support include:

• Travel Pass – is a free pass for the use on public transport and it is the most common form of travel assistance provided.
• Personal Transport Budget – will be paid monthly over 11 months to the parent/carer to take full responsibility for the school travel arrangements.
• Transport Vehicle – the provision of a vehicle to transport a child to and from their place of education. Vehicles and drivers are provided by a suitably qualified, registered, commercial provider working to contractual standards set by the Council.
• Pupil Guide/Escort – may be provided to accompany a child to their place of education whether using public transport or on Council provided transport. Pupil guides will only be provided where they are necessary for the safe operation of vehicles and/or the care of children and young people and where parents/carers are not reasonably able to accompany them.

17. The Council may also provide any other form of travel assistance it considers suitable and will consider any suggestions from the applicant about any travel assistance.
18. Parents are expected to accompany their children to school or college where necessary until they turn 18 unless there is a good reason why it is not reasonable to expect them to do so.

Key events

19. Mr X’s child, Y, has some health conditions and special educational needs (SEN). Y is a secondary school pupil and has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan.
20. Mr X’s family moved to the Council’s area and Y was due to start a new school in the area which was named in his EHC Plan.
21. In March 2024, Mr X applied to the Council for home to school transport support for Y and he specifically requested a ‘transport vehicle’. Mr X asked the Council to consider Y’s health conditions, his SEN and the distance from their home to Y’s school. Mr X said this was because Y cannot walk long distances.
22. In April, the Council issued its decision letter and informed Mr X that Y was eligible for a bus pass.
23. Mr X submitted an appeal against the Council’s decision to award Y with a bus pass instead of the Council-organised transport vehicle.
24. The stage 1 appeal minutes of meeting stated the panel considered the contents of Y’s EHC Plan, travel distance, Y’s health conditions and his family circumstances. The panel found:

• the journey to and from Y’s school was reasonable and within statutory travelling distance.
• no evidence to suggest Y could not make the journey when supported by his parent. And that a child would not normally be eligible to transport support solely because of their parents work commitments or caring responsibilities.
• no social, emotional and mental health were identified.
• no evidence to show Y had reduced mobility.

25. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s appeal for the reasons above and it maintained its original decision to award Y a bus pass.
26. Mr X escalated his case to the Council’s stage 2 appeal process, and he submitted additional evidence to support his case. These included a letter from Y’s GP, his previous school, a letter from Mr X’s previous council which showed it had awarded Y with taxi transport arrangement and a medical letter about Y’s mother’s health conditions.
27. The GP letter stated the Council’s decision for Y to travel to and from school by public transport posed several significant risks to his health and wellbeing. The GP said this was because Y has autism and the crowded, unpredictability and sensory overload that comes with public transportation would likely lead to heightened anxiety and potential behavioural issues for Y. The GP also said Y had epilepsy and though he had been seizure-free and no longer on medication, Y’s use of public transport could trigger a reoccurrence of his seizures. The GP asked the Council to reconsider its transport arrangement decision for Y based on his medical and educational needs.
28. The supporting letter from Y’s previous school stated that due to Y’s SEN, mobility needs and vulnerability, he would not be able to access public transport. It also stated Y would struggle to cope with the noise of the public transport and would mean his mother would need to accompany him on buses at a high additional cost for herself.
29. The stage 2 appeal minutes of meeting stated the panel considered all the additional supporting evidence Mr X submitted. The panel said:

• it considered the whole of the route to and from Y’s home to school and there was no evidence to suggest Y could not make the journey when supported by his parents.
• there was no evidence Y had physical mobility difficulties but noted behavioural difficulties had made walking and using public transport difficult for Y.
• it had re-considered the needs and provisions contained in Y’s EHC Plan, but it did not change its original decision.

30. The Council informed Mr X his appeal was not upheld. The Council maintained its decision was to award Y a bus pass or a PTB.
31. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council's decision and the appeal outcome; he made a complaint to the Ombudsman.
32. Mr X said he contacted some taxi companies to explore the use of the Council’s offer of a PTB. Mr X said all the taxi companies he approached refused to arrange a taxi service for Y using a PTB because he is below 16 years old and has SEN. Mr X said the taxi companies informed him the Council would have to arrange the service directly with them.
33. Mr X said since Y started attending the school, he drops Y off at school in the mornings on his way to work. But Y’s mother picks him up in the afternoons by taxi. Mr X said the taxi fares have caused financial loss and strain to his family.

Analysis

34. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and as such it is not our role to take a second look at if a Council’s home to school transport support decision was right or wrong. Instead, we look at the processes a Council followed to make its decision. If we consider the Council followed those processes correctly in line with the relevant law and guidance, we cannot question its decision. If we consider there was fault in its decision-making process, we normally ask a council to carry out a fresh appeal again. We do not come to a view on whether the appeal should be upheld.
35. In this case, the Council did not properly consider Mr X’s school transport application and Y’s needs in line with the provisions set out in relevant law and statutory guidance. I find it was unclear how the Council reached its decision that Y was eligible for a bus pass for the following reasons:
1. The law states eligible children include those living outside ‘statutory walking distance’ from the school (which is three miles in Y’s case). The Council’s initial decision letter stated Y was eligible to a bus pass which suggested it found Y was eligible to school transport support. However, there was no evidence to show how the Council calculated the distance to and from Y’s home to his school in deciding Y’s eligibility. This was fault and it caused uncertainty to Mr X.
2. Mr X in his application form requested ‘transport vehicle’ support for Y due to his health conditions, his SEN and the distance from their home to Y’s school. But there was no evidence to show how the Council considered Mr X’s expressed preference for a ‘transport vehicle’, before it made its decision to award Y a bus pass. This was fault and it was not in line with its policy. This caused uncertainty to Mr X as to whether the Council properly considered his application.
3. One of the reasons the Council did not uphold Mr X’s appeal was because it found the journey to and from Y’s school was reasonable and within statutory travelling distance. Again, there was no evidence to show how the Council arrived at this decision given it found Y was eligible to a bus pass. It was unclear whether the Council was referring to the journey being reasonable for Y to ‘walk’ or to travel by ‘public transport’. This was fault and caused confusion to Mr X.
4. Similarly, the Council in its appeal outcome letters used generic paragraphs which referred to walking routes and distances which were not relevant/helpful in Y’s case. This is because as stated above, the Council’s award of a bus pass to Y suggested he does not live within walking distance of his school. This was fault and caused further confusion to Mr X. And on balance, I find the Council’s inclusion of the generic paragraphs shows the Council did not properly consider Y’s case.
5. I note in the Council’s outcome letters at stages 1 and 2 of its appeal process, it said there was no evidence to suggest Y could not make the journey when supported by his parent. I find this statement is not in line with the statutory guidance.

The guidance refers to parents accompanying their children when walking to school. So, where a council decides a child is eligible for school transport support, then the child should not be expected to be accompanied by their parent in addition to the transport support. In Y’s case, the Council’s statement above shows it still expected Y to be accompanied by his parent on the bus journey. This was fault and it caused confusion and distress to Mr X.

I also note the Council’s policy states it expects parents to accompany children, where necessary until they are 18 years old. But the policy does not link this specifically to when the child walks to school in line with statutory guidance. Therefore, it appears to put more responsibility on parents than the statutory guidance does. And arguably, I find where a council expects a parent to travel on the bus with their child, it should pay their travel expenses too.

6. Furthermore, the statutory guidance states the Council should consider a child’s SEN, disability or mobility problems. The stages 1 and 2 minutes of meetings stated the panel considered Y’s EHC Plan and the additional supporting evidence Mr X submitted. The minutes also stated it found there was no evidence Y had physical mobility difficulties but noted behavioural difficulties had made walking and using public transport difficult for Y.

There was no evidence to show the Council properly considered Y’s SEN needs particularly about how Y’s use of public transport would potentially affect and cause him behavioural difficulties. There was also no evidence to show the Council considered or completed a risk assessment for Y. The Council’s focus appears to have been mainly on Y’s physical mobility in its decision-making. This was fault. It caused Mr X distress and uncertainty as to whether the Council properly considered all of Y’s needs before it reached its decision to award Y a bus pass.

36. Conclusively, I find there was confusion and a lack of clarity in how the Council considered Mr X’s application and appeal for home to school transport support for Y. The Council failed to show how it considered all of Y’s needs and how it considered a bus pass award was a suitable transport arrangement to meet his needs. The Council’s identified faults caused injustice to Mr X which will be addressed in the ‘agreed action’ section below. However, I do not find Y was caused any injustice because he continued to attend school albeit through his parents travel arrangements.
37. We have recently made service improvement recommendations in other decisions to the Council about how it considers home to school transport applications and appeals. We are continuing to monitor the actions the Council takes to ensure compliance with those and similar recommendations. For this reason, I have not made any service improvement recommendations in this case. This identified issue is already being addressed through other cases we have investigated.

Back to top

Agreed action

38. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council has agreed to complete the following within one month of the final decision:

• apologise in writing and make a symbolic payment of £250 to Mr X to acknowledge the injustice caused to him by the Council’s failings as identified above. The apology should be in accordance with our guidance, Making an effective apology
• with a different panel, carry out a fresh home to school transport appeal to consider all of Y’s needs in accordance with the relevant law, statutory guidance and the Council’s policy
• if after the fresh appeal process, the panel decides to award Y a different form of transport support, the Council should consider making a payment to Mr X to reimburse him with any avoidable expenses incurred taking Y to school. The reimbursement should be from when Y started attending the school to when the Council makes its fresh appeal decision.

39. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I find evidence of fault by the Council leading to injustice. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman