Summary: The Council was not at fault for its decision not to reimburse Mrs X for personal expenditure she incurred sending her child Y to post-16 education at a boarding college. This is because there is no statutory duty for a council to provide free or subsided travel and accommodation for post-16 education.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide sufficient funding for her child, Y’s transport to post-16 education between 2023 and 2025. She said the matter had been considered by the High Court but the Council had failed to consider the implications of the court’s decision and reconsider her circumstances following the conclusion of the court proceedings.
2. Mrs X wants the Council to reimburse her for the monies paid to transport and accommodate Y at their post-16 placement

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 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))
5. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. 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)
7. Mrs X initially complained to us about this matter in September 2024. Her complaint at that time was about the transport and accommodation costs she incurred during the 2023/24 academic year. We ended that investigation due to another person asking the court to consider the same issue. Mrs X brought her complaint back to us in early 2026 after the conclusion of the court proceedings. As Mrs X initially complained within 12 months of being aware of the matter her complaint is not late.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mrs 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 law and guidance

10. 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 (the guidance).
11. 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.
12. 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 considers 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).
13. 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.
14. 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.

What happened

Background

15. The Isles of Scilly Council (the Council) area is an island. The island does not have any sixth form school or colleges. Instead, young people aged 16 to 18 who want to access post 16 education must travel off the island to the mainland.
16. Travel on and off the island is either by sea or air. Sea travel is usually to Cornwall and takes almost three hours. The crossing can be affected by adverse weather and regular services only run between March and November. This means it is not possible for young people to commute daily and therefore have to stay on the mainland during term times.
17. There are a variety of options which families on the island use. This includes boarding schools and colleges on the mainland, staying with a ‘host’ family (a host family is a private arrangement between the young person or young person’s parent(s) and a person or family with a spare room on the mainland) or staying with friends and family.
18. The Council offers a grant from the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) to support young people with transport and accommodation funding to attend post 16 education. The Council funds up to the amount of the grant when the families provide receipts for the costs incurred. At the time Mrs X initially complained in 2024 the grant was £6,350 per academic year.

Mrs X’s complaint

19. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
20. Mrs X complained to the Council in May 2024 about the inadequate funding in place for post-16 education on the island. She said the low funding meant children were living in unregulated accommodation on the mainland and were therefore subjected to safeguarding risks. Mrs X said her child, Y attended a boarding college which had cost her over £11,000 so far in accommodation and travel costs and that would increase before the end of the academic year. Mrs X also complained the Council did not have a legally compliant post-16 transport policy.
21. Mrs X wanted reimbursement of her expenses and said she had submitted an invoice to the Council but had not received a response. Mrs X wanted the grant to rise to cover the cost of accommodation before the 2024/25 academic year and cover her costs for the 2023/24 academic year in full. Mrs X cited various paragraphs from the guidance including the points set out in paragraph 13.
22. The Council provided a stage one complaint response to Mrs X in June 2024. The Council said it had a published post-16 Transport Policy but accepted after review that this was not fully compliant with the requirements set out in the guidance. The policy, at the time 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. The Council said it would review the policy.
23. With regards to the funding the Council said it administered the grant within the resources allocated from ESFA and noted Mrs X had received the full grant allocation for the 2023/24 academic year. As such it did not uphold her complaint and offered no reimbursement for additional expenses. The Council advised Mrs X to petition the government and other agencies to secure an increase in funding.
24. Mrs X escalated her complaint to stage two of the complaints procedure. Mrs X disagreed that responsibility should fall on her (and others) to fight for additional funding. She said it was the Council’s responsibility.
25. The Council responded to Mrs X at stage two and said it could not provide additional funding from its own budget. It said again it would review its post-16 transport policy.
26. Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to us.
27. As explained above we ended our investigation into Mrs X’s initial complaint to us due to court action being taken by another person about the same matters.
28. In September 2024 the Council held a Full Council Meeting. During the meeting it considered a sufficiency report about sixth form education. 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.
29. The meeting also considered legal advice setting out the difference between unregistered and unregulated placements in relation to young people staying with host families.
30. 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. The Council later also provided a further £869.84 to relevant families as it had unused ESFA grant money to distribute.
31. A court issued a consent order in March 2025 following action by another person. 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.
32. 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.
33. The minutes showed the meeting 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.
34. 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.
35. The Council then issued its post 16 transport policy statement on 31 March 2025 in line with the Court order.
36. Mrs X complained again to the Council in April 2025 about the similar matters. She remained unhappy that the Council was not doing enough to facilitate attendance at post-16 provisions or safeguard children who live in unregulated accommodation. She said this was despite acceptance that daily travel to the mainland was not possible and the grant was not sufficient to cover travel and accommodation.
37. The Council responded to Mrs X in various forms including via email and a stage one and two response. In summary the Council said
• it had complied with the court consent order
• it has issued a legal and compliant post-16 transport policy
• it reconsidered its September 2024 decision in respect of the Council’s contribution towards the ESFA grant
• It now provided a maximum grant amount of £9,365
38. The Council said it was not in breach of any legal duties relating to post-16 transport and accommodation and its policy was now compliant with relevant law. It outlined other work it was carrying out including making links with post-16 and boarding colleges in Cornwall (the nearest point to the island) and exploring other accommodation options throughout the mainland.
39. Mrs X complained to us again in February 2026. She said the Council had not reconsidered her circumstances following the consent order or explain how the outcome affected her case. She wanted the Council to reconsider the invoices she submitted for Y’s accommodation and travel.

My findings

40. The complaint Mrs X brought to us in 2024 and again in 2026 is, in essence, about the Council’s decision not to reimburse the money she paid for Y to travel and live on the mainland for their post-16 education. She believed the Council’s transport policy at the time was unlawful.
41. 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, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
42. There is no fault in the Council’s decision not to reimburse Mrs X for the personal expenditure she incurred for Y to attend post-16 education on the mainland. This is because ultimately the legislation in place does not impose a statutory duty for a council to provide free or subsided travel and accommodation for post-16 education. It is acknowledged Mrs X paid additional costs for Y to attend boarding college because the ESFA grant and top ups from the Council does not cover the full cost. However, it remains there is no duty or legal obligation for the Council to reimburse Mrs X those costs.
43. Mrs X has raised various other issues with the Council including about its post-16 transport policy and how it considers safeguarding issues for children living on the mainland in unregulated accommodation.
44. I have not further considered the matter about the post-16 transport policy. This is because this has been considered by a court. Since then, the Council has issued another policy in line with the court consent order. Further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.
45. The courts also considered safeguarding matters around the use of unregulated accommodation. In any case, Y lived in boarding accommodation when living on the mainland and has now completed post-16 education. There is therefore insufficient past and no ongoing personal injustice to warrant investigating this element any further.

Back to top

Decision

46. I found fault no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman