Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly consider its statutory duties and failed to provide sufficient funding for transport to sixth form aged education for her child Y between 2023 and 2025. The Council made its decision on its post 16 home to school transport policy and funding for families without fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to provide sufficient post 16 education or training options for her child, Y, or to provide sufficient funding for transport and accommodation for Y to be able attend sixth form education during the 2023/24 and 2024/25 academic years. Ms X also complained the Council:
1. did not acknowledge it had failed to publish a post 16 transport policy in line with the legislation for the 2024/25 academic year;
2. failed to properly consider the additional costs for transport and accommodation for Y to access education in comparison to other young people living in urban areas with access to post 16 provisions;
3. failed to properly consider its use of private unregulated accommodation when reconsidering a decision it made on the funding support for post 16 transport for the 2024/25 academic year;
4. delayed in issuing its post 16 transport policy for 2024/25 and making decisions; and
5. provided a response to her complaint that was overly technical and failed to identify the impact of its decisions.
2. Ms X said she had to meet the additional cost for transport and accommodation of several thousand pounds per academic year which put her family in financial hardship. Ms X wanted the Council to reimburse the costs she has been caused and improve its policies around transport to sixth form aged education.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

5. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))
6. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
7. 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

8. 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)
9. Ms X complained about matters that began with the 2023/24 academic year. Ms X originally brought her complaint to us in August 2024, so within 12 months of being aware of the matter. We ended our investigation as another person had asked the courts to consider the same matters. Ms X complained to us again once the court action had concluded and the Council had reconsidered her complaint. For that reason, Ms X’s complaint is not late and I have investigated as set out below.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

12. The transport duty for young people of sixth form age (16 to 18, or 19 if they started the course before they turned 19) is set out in the Education Act 1996 and the Post 16 transport to education and training statutory guidance.
13. The statutory guidance explains the overall intention of the post 16 transport duty is to ensure that young people can access the post 16 education and training of their choice, and that councils assess if any support is necessary for those young people to access it.
14. Councils have a duty to publish a post 16 transport policy statement, on or before 31 May in the year in which the academic year begins, setting out the transport arrangements it consider necessary to make to facilitate attendance at education or training, and the financial help available for:
• Sixth form aged learners; and
• learners with Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans up to the age of 25 who started their programme of learning before their 19th birthday. (Education Act 1996 section 509AA).
15. Councils have discretion to set their own arrangements, but they must have regard to various factors including:
• the needs of those for whom it would not be reasonably practicable to access education or training if no arrangements were made;
• that young people in rural areas should not be financially worse off because they need to travel further to access education than peers in urban areas;
• that young people need reasonable opportunities to choose between learning establishments and courses; 
• the distance and journey time of the place of learning from the home; and
• the cost of transport to the learning establishment and of any alternative means of means of facilitating attendance.
16. The legislation only requires a council to provide a post 16 transport policy. It does not require the provision of any transport or funding, although such provision may be included in the arrangements specified in its policy. This is unlike compulsory school aged transport where if a child is eligible, by meeting certain criteria, they are entitled to receive free home to school transport.

Registered accommodation

17. A children’s home is an establishment that provides care and accommodation wholly or mainly for children. Children’s homes must be registered with Ofsted and must meet certain criteria and standards to be successfully registered.
18. An establishment is a children’s home if it provides care and accommodation wholly or mainly for children. It is not a children’s home merely because a child is cared for and accommodated there by a parent, foster parent or relative. (Care Standards Act, Section 1, Paragraphs 2 and 3)

What happened

Background information

19. The Isles of Scilly Council area is an island. The Island does not have any sixth form aged education providers. Young people aged 16 to 18 who want to continue with their education therefore have to travel off the Island to access education.
20. Travel on and off the Island is by sea or by air and so is subject to cancellation by severe weather. The times and availability of transport to and from the Island mean that it is not possible for young people to commute daily and so they have to stay on the mainland during term time.
21. Historically families have used a variety of options which include boarding schools or colleges on the mainland, staying with family or friends or using a ‘host family’. A host family is a private arrangement between the young person’s parent(s) and a person or family with a spare room on the mainland. The Council provides some limited support in identifying host families but is not involved in the arrangements.
22. The Council administered a grant from the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA – a government department) to support young people with transport and accommodation funding to attend post 16 provision. The Council provided funding up to the amount of the grant when the families provided receipts for the costs incurred.

This investigation

23. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
24. Y lived at home with Ms X on the Isles of Scilly. In September 2023 Y was aged between 16 and 18 and wanted to continue their education. They attended a college on the mainland which had boarding accommodation, as travelling to and from the Island each day was not feasible.
25. With growing concern about the funding for suitable transport and accommodation for post 16 learners, a group of parents within the Council area presented the Council with a document titled ‘Parent Research’ in January 2024. It set out anonymous data about young people’s experiences of sixth form aged education with particular reference to cost and safety. The document provided narratives of young people’s experiences living with host families.
26. Ms X submitted an invoice to the Council in March 2024 covering the 2023/24 academic year. The invoice requested the payment of the cost of accommodation and travel to and from the college for Y, which was several thousand pounds. The Council paid Ms X £6,365 which was the total amount of grant provided to it by the ESFA. This was significantly less than the amount Ms X had invoiced.
27. Ms X complained to the Council that it failed to provide sufficient information about sixth form aged education in advance and the funding it provided for travel and accommodation costs to access sixth form aged education was insufficient. Ms X said its post 16 transport policy did not properly consider the needs of the young people and it did not properly safeguard young people travelling to attend sixth form aged education. Ms X asked the Council to increase the grant to cover accommodation costs, pay the remaining amount she had invoiced which came to several thousands of pounds, review its policy and ensure it was in line with the legislation and statutory guidance and ensure young people were safeguarded.
28. The Council accepted its post 16 transport policy was not in line with the statutory guidance and it should review it. It said it should consult with families on the Island, carry out an equality impact assessment about the funding and gather legal advice on how it should support young people to travel safely. It encouraged Ms X to complain to us, and the government to secure an increase in the grant it received from the ESFA.
29. Ms X was dissatisfied with the Council’s response and asked it to consider the complaint further in June 2024. Ms X said the Council had not responded to all her points of complaint sufficiently or explained how it had met its statutory duties.
30. The Council provided some further explanation and told Ms X it could not provide any funding from its own budget. It said it would review its post 16 transport policy, but did not uphold the complaint.
31. Ms X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and complained to us in August 2024. As set out in paragraph 9, we ended our investigation as another person had taken court action about the same or similar matters.
32. The Council held a Full Council meeting in September 2024. The meeting considered:
• a report about the Council’s sixth form aged education and sufficiency;
• legal advice setting out the difference between unregistered and unregulated placements in relation to young people staying with host families;
• an overview of how and when young people’s travel on and off the Island was disrupted due to the weather in the previous years; and
• a summary of the costs for post 16 transport claimed by parents of relevant young people for the previous two academic years and the amounts paid by the Council.
33. The sufficiency report set out there was no sixth form aged education on the Island and the current grant was not covering the costs for travel and accommodation for all families due to increasing costs. It said some families were choosing boarding schools or colleges and were covering the additional costs themselves. It recorded the average costs for a young person staying with a host family was £6,329 which did not include transport costs. The report proposed actions the Council could take and the financial implications for the Council of each option.
34. The Full Council meeting agreed to accept a proposal in the report to provide an extra £1,635 for the 2024/25 year on a one-off basis from Council reserves to make the grant amount £8,000. It said that was the average families using the host option would spend including transport. It agreed to complete a full appraisal of the short, medium and long term options in the report which included:
• pursuing a formal partnership with a local college on the mainland as the Council’s nominated post 16 provider with a plan to develop a type of post 16 supported accommodation over time;

• gathering information from young people about their experience of sixth form aged education through a consultation;
• exploring options for on-island post 16 provision; and
• providing information about transition to families through a digital handbook available to young people in year 9 onwards.

35. The Council later also provided a further £869.84 to relevant families as it had unused ESFA grant money to distribute.
36. Following action by a third person on very similar matters a court issued a consent order in March 2025. The order said the Council:
• had not issued a post 16 transport policy in line with the Education Act 1996 for the 2024/25 academic year;
• would issue a compliant post 16 transport policy statement on or before 31 March 2025;
• would reconsider its decision taken by the Full Council meeting in September 2024 in relation to Council funding for post 16 transport to take in to account safeguarding concerns and potential risks for young people travelling to and from education and living with host families; and
• would not reduce the grant funding below £8,000 per student for the 2025/26 academic year.
37. The Council held a Full Council meeting in March 2025. The meeting reconsidered its decision of September 2024 about the Council’s contribution on top of the ESFA grant for the 2024/25 year. The meeting also considered the proposed post 16 transport policy statement the Court ordered to be implemented by 31 March 2025.
38. The meeting then considered the reports available to it in September 2024 as well as:
• an analysis of concerns raised in relation to the host family arrangement. The meeting discussed that neither the Isles of Scilly Council, nor neighbouring councils on the mainland, had received a safeguarding referral for a young person living with a host family;
• the Parental Research presented to the Council in January 2024;
• a report providing updates on the options identified at the September 2024 Council meeting which included that it had issued the first version of its post 16 digital handbook and had increased its contribution towards the cost of travel to post 16 open days or to view accommodation;
• an analysis of the options for the meeting to consider of funding for post 16 transport and the financial implications of each option;
• a letter from the Council in 2022 to the ESFA requesting additional funding and setting out the additional costs faced by parents of young people residing on the Island but attending education on the mainland;
• feedback it had received from its own consultation on its proposed post 16 transport policy; and
• its equality impact assessment.
39. The minutes showed the meeting discussed the reports and reconsidered its funding decision of September 2024. It decided to maintain its original decision and confirmed it would provide £1,635.00 towards the ESFA grant of £6,365.00 to provide a total grant for each eligible student of £8,000.
40. The meeting also approved the proposed post 16 transport policy statement including the Council contribution to the ESFA grant to provide a total grant amount of £9,635.00 for eligible students for 2025/26.
41. The Council issued its post 16 transport policy statement on 31 March 2025 in line with the Court order.
42. Ms X complained to the Council again in March 2025. Ms X said as the Council had accepted its post 16 transport policy was unlawful it should reimburse the travel and accommodation expenses she had incurred for Y to attend sixth form aged education. Ms X said the Council had a statutory duty to ensure young people could access education or training including providing appropriate transport arrangements where necessary, particularly for those facing financial hardship or living in rural areas which must be considered above financially driven considerations. Ms X also complained the Council’s use of host families did not offer any assurance of Council oversight, inspection or other regulatory controls for the young people staying there.
43. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint. It said it had issued a compliant post 16 transport policy and was not in breach of its legal duties. It said it did not have a duty to provide free or subsidised post 16 transport and so it would not reimburse Ms X’s costs. It directed Ms X to us if she remained dissatisfied.
44. Ms X complained to us as set out in paragraph 1.

My findings

45. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, the law says we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.

Complaint a – acknowledgment of failure to publish a post 16 transport policy in line with the legislation for the 2024/25 academic year

46. The Council’s post 16 transport policy was considered by the court. The Council accepted it had not issued it in line with the legislation and the court order it to do so. The Council issued the policy in line with the court order. As the Post 16 transport policy has been considered by the court, I have not investigated that point further as set out in paragraph 5.
47. The Council, in its final complaint response to Ms X, stated the policy it issued in March 2025 was compliant with the legislation. It did not need to further acknowledge the previous fault. There is no fault in the Council’s actions on this point. I have considered the post 16 transport policy for the previous academic year in paragraph 52.

Complaint b – failure to consider additional costs for young people living in rural areas

48. The guidance states young people in rural areas should not be financially worse off because they need to travel further to access sixth form aged education than peers in urban areas. All young people on the Island live in a rural area by nature of its transport links. There is no expectation in the guidance the Council should consider the comparative circumstances of children living in other council areas, such as the mainland, when making decisions on its own post 16 transport policy.
49. The Council considered the additional costs and implications of the unique travel arrangements of young people living on the island in its Full Council meetings. It reviewed reports on costs and travel disruption. It considered the relevant legislation which does not impose a duty on the Council to provide free or subsidised transport to sixth form aged education. The Council made a decision in September 2024 and confirmed that decision in March 2025 having considered all of the relevant information. The Council ultimately made its decision without fault, and so I cannot question the outcome.

Complaint c – failure to properly consider of the use of private unregulated accommodation in funding decisions

50. Regulated or registered accommodation relates to children’s homes which must be registered with Ofsted. The host families arrangement which the Council refers to are not children’s homes under the Care Standards Act 2000 and so therefore is neither regulated, nor unregulated.
51. The Council considered legal advice, the Parental Research, analysis of concerns about host families, that host families arrangement was one option available to young people, and how the Council supported families using that option. There was no fault in how the Council considered the host family option when it made its decision on the post 16 transport funding and so I cannot question the outcome.

Complaint d - delay in issuing the 2024/25 post 16 transport policy

52. The matter of the post 16 transport policy for the 2024/25 academic year has been considered by a court and so I have not investigated this matter for the reasons set out in paragraph 5. In addition, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome as the Council has now issued the relevant policy.

Complaint e – overly technical complaint response and failure to consider impact of decisions

53. Ms X complained to the Council about its statutory duties, its decision making and the impact of its decisions. The Council responded to the points Ms X raised using appropriate terminology to explain its considerations and responsibilities. There was no fault in the Council’s response to the points Ms X raised.
54. The Council considered the impact of its decisions in relation to funding for post 16 transport during the Full Council meeting in March 2025. It accepted the funding it provided did not cover the full costs some families incurred. However, it also correctly considered the legislation did not require it to do so. Ms X absorbed the additional costs of Y attending a boarding provision. The Council set out that there was no basis on which it should reimburse those costs above the ESFA grant and Council financial uplift it had already agreed. The Council’s decision and explanation was in line with the legislation, statutory guidance and its discretionary transport funding powers, so there was no fault in its decision.

Ms X complaints about matter in 2023/24

55. Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of additional transport and accommodations costs, and suitable accommodation in the 2023/24 academic year were not materially different from the complaint about matters relating to the 2024/25 post 16 transport policy. The Council made decisions about its post 16 transport policy and funding in September 2024 and confirmed it in 2025. It increased the grant funding to families to cover increased costs in 2024 and provided an additional top up from unspent grant funding. There is insufficient evidence of significant personal injustice to Ms X to investigate the 2023/24 post 16 transport policy now as the decision was materially the same as the decision made in 2024. In addition, further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome as the Council has already reconsidered and confirmed its decision without fault.
56. Ms X also complained the Council failed to provide enough information about post 16 options prior to Y finishing secondary school. I have not investigated this point as there is no worthwhile outcome achievable given that Y has now finished sixth form aged education. In addition, the Council has already taken appropriate action and has developed a digital resource for young people aged 13 to 14 and their families, before they need to make decisions about what options they want to take after they complete their compulsory schooling at 16.

Back to top

Decision

57. I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman