School transport


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Wokingham Borough Council (19 000 308)

    Statement Not upheld School transport 09-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council did not properly consider her appeal for home to school transport provision. Based on the evidence the Ombudsman has seen, there is no fault by the Council in the way it decided a school transport appeal.

  • Nottingham City Council (18 016 952)

    Statement Upheld School transport 05-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council considered her application and appeal for her disabled son to receive home to school transport. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault because it did not follow the statutory guidance. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise, reconsider the application and review its policy.

  • Oxfordshire County Council (18 016 808)

    Statement Not upheld School transport 04-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council's decision to withdraw an offer of free home to school transport for his daughter, X. He says the Council's approach is unfair and inconsistent. Mr Y also complains about the conduct of the subsequent appeal hearing against the Council's decision. The Ombudsman does not uphold the complaint because there is no evidence of procedural fault and so we cannot question the merits of the Council's decision.

  • Suffolk County Council (18 011 446)

    Statement Upheld School transport 28-Jun-2019

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council wrongly refused her Home to School Transport application. We found fault as the Council's Home to School Transport Appeals policy does not follow statutory guidance. We have recommended a suitable remedy in this case.

  • Kent County Council (18 018 238)

    Statement Not upheld School transport 25-Jun-2019

    Summary: the Ombudsman's decision is that there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or the appeal panel regarding its consideration of Mr X's school transport application and appeal.

  • City Of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (18 015 770)

    Statement Upheld School transport 24-Jun-2019

    Summary: the Council's school transport appeals panel failed to properly consider Mrs B's daughter's appeal for travel assistance. The Council's agreement to hold a further appeal with new panel members is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

  • Manchester City Council (18 016 629)

    Statement Upheld School transport 21-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr S complains about the Council's handling of his application for free school transport for his child. The Council did not give Mr S the opportunity to make verbal representations at the final appeal stage, which is fault but does not cause Mr S significant injustice. The Council has agreed to review its free school transport policy to bring it in line with the statutory guidance.

  • Derbyshire County Council (18 015 457)

    Statement Upheld School transport 21-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains about the Council's handling of his application for free school transport for his child and his complaint following this. The Council did not give Mr B the opportunity to make verbal representations during the two-stage appeal process, which is fault as it is not in line with statutory guidance. This has caused uncertainty for Mr B and his family. The Council has agreed to offer Mr B a fresh appeal and apologise for not responding to his stage two complaint. The Council has amended its policy to allow verbal representations at appeal since Mr B made his complaint to the Ombudsman.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (18 015 996)

    Statement Not upheld School transport 19-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr V complained the Council refused to provide home to school transport for his child, W. Mr V did not submit any documentation to the Council to suggest W was at risk if transport was not provided. There is no evidence of Council fault.

  • Thurrock Council (18 012 732)

    Statement Not upheld School transport 14-Jun-2019

    Summary: The Council was not at fault in its consideration of Ms B's appeal against its refusal to provide home-to-school transport to her children. It correctly applied the law and fully considered its discretionary powers. As a result, I cannot question its decision.