Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the conduct a school transport appeal panel. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the panel considered the appeal to warrant investigation by us.

The complaint

1. Ms X said a school transport appeal panel failed to properly consider her appeal against the withdrawal of free home-to-school transport for her child.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Following the issue of revised statutory government guidance about home-to-school transport, the Council reviewed the free home-to-school transport for Ms X’s child. It was entitled to do this. It decided to withdraw the transport with effect from September 2024. Ms X appealed against the refusal, but this was unsuccessful.
6. The revised statutory guidance contains more information about children with special educational needs and their transport entitlement than previous guidance. It makes it clear that the entitlement of a secondary-age child with SEN to free home-to-school transport does not have to be assessed solely on the child’s ability to walk to school on his or her own. It requires councils to also consider whether a parent could accompany the child. Provided councils consider whether the parent could walk the distance and if it would be reasonable to expect them to accompany the child, they may decide to refuse school transport. While the revised guidance requires councils to consider matters like work commitments, it makes it clear that any decision must be taken individually rather than via a blanket approach that adopts a fixed position.
7. In this case the appeal panel notes show it accepted the child could not walk to school alone. It was not in dispute that the child could physically walk the distance. But Ms X provided a letter from the child’s school that stated the child was not aware of their own home address and could not ask for help if a problem arose. In that sense, the panel accepted that the EHC Plan meant the child could not travel alone. That then raised the issue whether the child could be accompanied by Ms X. The panel then considered Ms X claim that she could not always accompany her child as she had mobility problems and worked shifts. The panel took the view that as Ms X had provided no medical evidence her incapacity to walk the distance, she was able to do so. It also took the view that she had only one child and that a family member lived nearby who might help on occasions when she could not accompany her child.
8. Other matters raised by Ms X are unlikely to have affected the panel’s decision. Any medical evidence of Ms X’s conditions should have been available regardless of short notice of the panel date as Ms X already knew she had appealed and there would be a panel hearing. Whether the Council’s presenting officer had read Ms X’s case was not relevant to the decision, as it was made by the panel members, not the presenting officer. The same holds true of the time taken for Ms X to receive the decision after the hearing. I have also seen no evidence that the panel included financial considerations in its deliberations about whether to uphold the appeal.
9. We can only question the panel’s decision if it acted with procedural fault in reaching it, not because we might have reached another decision ourselves. In this case, the evidence suggests the panel acted in accordance with the revised statutory guidance and considered the evidence before it in reaching its decision. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by us.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the appeal panel to warrant an investigation by us.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman