Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s school transport decision for her son. The Ombudsman found no fault in the Council’s decision-making process.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s school transport decision for her son.
2. Mrs X considers the Council’s decision not to let her son buy daily electronic train tickets is unjust. She said the Council did not make reasonable adjustments for her son.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’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

6. As part of the investigation, I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
• The Education Act 1996 (sections 508F – 509AE (as inserted by the Education and Inspections Act 2006).
• The Post-16 transport to education and training statutory guidance (January 2019).
• The Council’s Post 16 Transport Policy Statement.
7. Mrs 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

8. Post-16 students include young people of sixth form age and adult learners.
9. Councils have a duty to publish a transport policy statement setting out the arrangements and the financial help available. This is to ensure eligible students can access the education and training of their choice.
10. Transport arrangements may include reduced fares, bus passes, a mileage allowance, actual transport, or cash.
11. Councils have discretion to set their own transport arrangements. When considering a request for assistance, councils must consider the nature of the route and all other relevant matters.
12. Councils may take bursary funding into account when assessing a person’s need for transport support. Councils may also ask parents to contribute to transport costs if they can afford it.
13. To be eligible for transport assistance, the Council’s transport policy requires students to attend the nearest school or college to their home which offers the same or similar course they wish to study.

What happened

14. Mrs X’s son suffers from an inflammatory bowel disease, and anxiety. He takes medication but needs toilet facilities close by when he travels. Buses are not suitable. Mrs X cannot take her son to college, so he travels by train.
15. Mrs X asked the Council to fund her son’s travel to college on 23 June 2020. In her application, she explained her son’s condition and how it affects him. She also told the Council her son was taking medication which supresses his immune system, making him more vulnerable to COVID-19. She said there are no other colleges locally which offer the course her son wanted to study.
16. Mrs X told the Council her son was at risk buying physical train tickets because he would need to operate a machine used by other people or visit a ticket office. She asked the Council to let her son buy electronic tickets using his mobile phone instead.
17. The Council refused Mrs X’s application. It did not consider her son was eligible for free transport under its Post 16 Transport Policy Statement. It said because her son is over 16, the Council has no duty to give free transport. It suggested Mrs X look into subsidised tickets or a bursary from her son’s college.
18. Mrs X appealed on 30 July on medical and financial grounds. She said she tried moving closer to her son’s chosen college in council housing but had not been successful so far.
19. The Council responded to Mrs X’s appeal on 7 August 2020. It said her son’s chosen college is not the closest to their home. It said there was a closer college which offered similar courses. The Council therefore turned down Mrs X’s appeal.
20. Mrs X appealed to the Transport Appeals Panel (the Panel) on 13 August. She asked the Panel to consider the impact of COVID-19 on her son’s condition. She also said two local colleges do not offer the courses her son wished to study. She provided emails from the two colleges confirming this.
21. The appeal hearing took place on 30 September. Mrs X and a Council officer attended via video link.
22. The Panel discussed possible college choices and why Mrs X’s son needed to stay at his chosen college. It also discussed his condition and whether travelling by train was suitable compared to a car or taxi. Mrs X asked the Panel if her son could use electronic train tickets. She was worried about the risk of using a physical ticket because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
23. The Council wrote to Mrs X on 6 October 2020 with the outcome of the Panel hearing. The Panel confirmed:
• Other local colleges cannot offer the same or similar courses.
• It considered Mrs X’s son was in the best place to support his needs (educational and social).
• It allowed the appeal on medical and financial grounds and awarded free school transport by means of a weekly saver railcard. The Panel agreed to backdate the award to the start of September 2020 school term.
• It noted the added stress of the COVID-19 pandemic. It said if Mrs X’s son missed his train the Council would pay for a taxi.
24. Mrs X emailed the Council on 26 December with details of the rail fare she was claiming for her son between September and December.
25. The Council emailed Mrs X on 5 January 2021. It said, as of 8 January, Mrs X could buy a weekly train ticket for her son for £19. It said that would become the Council’s regular payment, as agreed by the Panel.
26. Mrs X emailed the Council on 6 January 2021. She said the rail operator told her there is no electronic or contactless weekly travel option. She therefore asked the Council to pay for more expensive daily e-tickets instead.
27. The Council said the Panel awarded a weekly saver railcard. The cost of this is £19 per week, or £3.80 per day. The Council appreciated an electronic ticket is more expensive but said its contribution would be in line with the Panel’s decision.
28. Mrs X asked for a review of the case. She said the Council’s interpretation of the Panel’s decision was different to hers. She said her appeal was upheld and the decision letter did not set a cost limit.
29. On 8 January, the Council said it checked the award with the chair of the Panel. The award was a weekly saver ticket. That costs £19 so it would not pay more. It said the decision was final.
30. Mrs X complained on 13 January. She argued the Panel did not set a limit and the decision letter did not address her request for electronic tickets on safety grounds.
31. The Council was satisfied it acted in line with the Panel’s award. It said the Panel’s decision was final so it would not accept a formal complaint about it. It signposted Mrs X to the Ombudsman if she was unhappy.
32. Mrs X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 20 January 2021. She told me, unfortunately, ticket operators do not sell weekly electronic train tickets, only daily ones. That means they are more expensive than buying a discounted physical weekly ticket.

Response to my enquiries

33. The Council told me the independent panel awarded the cost of a weekly train ticket, or £19. That decision is binding, and the Council followed it.
34. The Council did not consider the type of ticket Mrs X wanted for her son. The panel agreed to reimburse £19 a week. The Council is not saying Mrs X’s son must purchase a physical ticket, just that it won’t pay more than £19 a week.

Back to top

Analysis

35. The Council did not have a duty to provide free transport and initially decided Mrs X’s son was not eligible for assistance.
36. On appeal, the Panel agreed for the Council to pay Mrs X’s son’s school transport costs but limited to the cost of a weekly train ticket. I have seen the notes from the appeal hearing and I am satisfied the Panel properly considered the appeal grounds Mrs X raised. That included a request for her son to buy electronic tickets. The Panel considered the need for electronic tickets but decided not to award more than the cost of a standard weekly ticket. That decision was at the Panel’s discretion.
37. Mrs X asked the Council to pay more so her son could buy daily electronic tickets, but it did not have a duty to do so. The Panel’s decision is final and there is no further right of appeal. I therefore do not consider the Council was at fault when it refused Mrs X’s request.
38. Mrs X said her son needed to buy electronic tickets as a reasonable adjustment to reduce the risk of contracting COVID-19. I have not seen evidence to support this. Mrs X has not provided medical evidence for this specific need and, as above, the issue was properly considered by the Panel.
39. I have not seen evidence the Council or the Panel failed to consider relevant issues, or that they took any irrelevant issues into consideration.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I have completed my investigation. I found the Council followed the correct process and was not at fault in its decision-making.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman